M7E 


•••••••••••••••••• 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


<  ) 


Deceived 
Accessions  No. 


CLm  No. 


MEXE  MEXE  IEKEL  [THAKSIN 


AN  HISTORICAL  STUDY 


OF  THE 


FIFTH  CHAPTER  OF  DANIEL 


DISSERTATION 


Presented  to  the  Board  of  University  Studies  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University 
for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


BY 


JOHN  DYNELEY  PRINCE 


BALTIMORE,    1893 


UKNK  MKM:  TKKKL  i  THAKSIN 


AN   HISTORICAL  STUDY 


OF  THE 


FIFTH   CHAPTER  OF  DANIEL 


DISSERTATION 

Presented  to  the   Board  of  University  Studies  of  the  Johns  Hopkins 
University  for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


JOHN   DYNELEY   PRINCE 


UHIVBRSITY 


BALTIMORE 
1893 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  following  dissertation  is  an  attempt  to  bring  forward  and  empha- 
size whatever  germs  of  historical  truth  there  may  lurk  in  the  fifth 
chapter  of  the  much  disputed  Book  of  Daniel.  The  keen  knife  of 
modern  criticism,  in  the  demonstration  of  the  untenable  character 
of  the  old  orthodox  position  regarding  the  book,  has  so  dissected  and 
torn  the  work  asunder,  that  whatever  of  truth  there  might  be  in  it  is 
now  liable  to  be  overlooked  in  the  search  for  and  exposition  of  the 
many  unquestionable  historical  errors. 

It  seems  therefore  that  the  time  has  come,  without  denying  the  un- 
doubted late  origin  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  to  lay  stress  on  the  few 
grains  of  true  history  which  the  Maccabaean  author  has  succeeded  in 
gathering  from  the  erring  traditions  of  his  time. 

The  writer  of  this  dissertation,  accordingly,  offers  a  suggestion 
towards  the  elucidation  of  the  mysterious  sentence  Ch.  v.  25,  and  has 
endeavoured  to  show  that  it  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  consider  this 
part  of  Daniel  a  pure  invention  of  the  author,  but  that  it  is  possible  to 
detect  even  here  an  echo  of  real  history.  Abstracts  of  this  dissertation 
have  been  published  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  Circulars,  No.  98,  p. 
94  ;  and  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  American  Oriental  Society,  April,  1892, 
pp.  clxxxii-clxxxix. 

The  writer  takes  this  opportunity  to  express  his  gratitude  to  Professor 
Paul  Haupt  for  many  kindnesses  and  especially  for  the  constant  guid- 
ance and  personal  attention  which  have  been  given  him  in  his  work 
at  the  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

BALTIMORE,  February,  1893. 


$S 

UITI7BESITT 


OP  TUTTLE,  MOBEHOUSE  &  TAYLOR, 
NEW    HAVEN,   CONN. 


*a 

UffI7ERSITr 


CHAPTER  FIRST 

THE  MYSTERIOUS  WRITING. 

Every  reader  of  the  Bible  is  familiar  with  the  story  of  the 
feast  of  Belshazzar  and  the  mysterious  writing  which  appeared 
as  a  warning  to  the  last  king  of  Babylon.  The  enigmatical 
sentence  has  always  been  considered  one  of  the  most  obscure 
of  the  many  difficult  scriptural  passages  which  have  awakened 
the  interest  and  baffled  the  ingenuity  of  scholars.  Indeed,  up 
to  the  present  decade  no  really  satisfactory  explanation  of  ^the 
phrase  has  been  attained.  Even  if  it  be  admitted  that  the 
events  described  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Daniel  actually  oc- 
curred, there  are  still  two  difficulties  presented  by  the  Biblical 
record  ;  first,  the  true  meaning  of  the  sentence,  and  second, 
the  reason  why  the  writing  was  unintelligible  to  the  hierogram- 
matists. 

The  ancient  writers  evidently  regarded  the  three  words  Mene, 
Tekel  and  Peres1  of  verses  26,  27  and  28  as  substantives. 
Josephus  (Antt.,  x.  11,  3)  e.  g.,  translates  them  by  opd/nfe, 
crTa#/-to9,  /c\a<rfca,  and  Jerome  by  'numerus,  appensio,  divisio.'1 

Among  the  more  modern  scholars  the  opinion  has  been 
advanced  that  KJJp  and  ^pjl  are  preterites  of  the  verbs 
4  to  count '  and  *?pfi  '  to  weigh,'  respectively,  and  that 
the  last  word  of  the  phrase,  is  a  plural  participle  of  D*)5  '  to 
divide.'  The  translation  for  verse  25  was  accordingly  sug- 
gested, '  numeravit,  numeravit,  appendit  et  dividunt.'2 

J.  D.  Michaelis,  f  Daniel '  p.  51,  suggested  reading  JOp  NJJD 
"Der  Zahlende  (God)  hat  geziihlt,"  while  Dereser  and 
Bertholdt,  ('  Daniel'^.  389)  following  Theodotion  and  the  Vul- 
gate rejected  one  K-5P  as  an  error  of  the  copyist,  who,  accord- 
ing to  their  idea,  may  have  written  the  word  twice.  Bertholdt 

1  Both  the  Greek  and  Latin  translations  have  only  the  three  words 
4  Mane,  Thekel,  Phares '  in  verse  25.  See  below,  Appendix  II,  note  1,  to 
verse  25. 

2 See  Buxtorf,  'Lexicon  Chaldaicum  Talmudicum  et  Rabbinicum,' 
col.  2623. 


regarded  the  three  words  as  participles,  translating  "  Gezahlt 
ist  es,  gewogen  ist  es,  getheilt  ist  es."  This  opinion  which 
was  followed  with  certain  modifications  by  almost  all  the 
subsequent  critics3  was  never  a  satisfactory  explanation,  because, 
while  it  may  be  possible  to  regard  NJjp  as  a  passive  participle, 
the  form  of  the  other  words  Tpfi  and  D^£  has  always  pre- 
sented a  difficulty. 

The  remark  of  Abr.  Geiger  in  an  explanation  of  a  Mishnic 
passage  in  the  Ztschr.  der  deutschen  morgenldndischen  Gesell- 
sehaft,  xxi.  (1867)  _p.  467/.  that  the  Tosephta  regarded  D^£  in 
the  phrase  D*l£3l  i"00  POO  ,  as  '  a  half-mina,'  should  have  given 
a  clue  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  mysterious  sentence.  No 
one  however  seems  to  have  had  a  similar  idea  until  of  late 
years,  when  an  entirely  new  light  was  thrown  on  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage  by  the  distinguished  French  archaeologist 
M.  Clermont-Ganneau,  who,  in  1886,  published  in  the  Jour- 
nal Asiatique  (Serie  viii.  vol.  I.  pp.  36^.)  an  article  entitled 
1  Mane,  Thecel,  Phares  et  le  f  estin  de  Balthasar,'  which  appeared 
in  an  English  translation  in  Hebraica,  iii.  pp.  87-102.  Gan- 
neau  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  interpretation  attributed 
to  Daniel  does  not  agree  rigorously  with  the  prophet's  deci- 
pherment of  the  inscription,  i.  e.,  that  the  interpretation  given 
by  the  author  in  vv.  26,  27,  28,  is  based  only  on  the  three 
words  Mene,  Tekel  and  Peres,  the  plural  form  of  the  latter 
,  which  appears  in  v.  25  preceded  by  the  conjunc- 


3  Compare  among  others,  Havernick,  '  Daniel,'  1832,  p.  195,  who 
explained  the  form  7pH  as  being  caused  by  analogy  with  fcOp  ; 
Lengerke,  '  Daniel,'  1885,  pp.  261,  262,  who  explains  the  three  words 
as  participles  analogous  in  form  to  the  fictitious  form  "Tt^  (1*fa$) 
in  chap.  ii.  5,  8  ;  and  Hitzig,  '  Daniel,'  1850,  p.  84,  who  regarded 
fi  as  a  middle  pronunciation  between  7*pfl  and  ?pri  (from 

containing  the  double  meaning  '  thou  art  weighed  '  and  '  found 
too  light,'  a  rather  fanciful  supposition  which  was  objected  to  by 
Kranichfeld,  '  Daniel,'  1868,  p.  226.  The  latter  considered  ^pfl  not 
as  a  pure  passive  participle,  but  as  a  sort  of  passive  preterite  which 
passed  to  an  intransitive.  7*pri  becoming  7pH  by  assonance  with 
&Op  •  (C/.  also  Keil,  '  Daniel,'  p.  158,  who  translated  verse  25 
"  Gezahlt,  gezahlt,  gewogen  und  in  Stiicke.") 


tion  1  being  di.-ivuarded.  This  difference  between  the  text  as 
read  and  the  explanation,  he  thought  could  only  be  explained 
by  the  supposition  that  the  Biblical  author  had  to  do  with  a 
set  traditional  phrase,  from  which  it  was  necessary  to  bring 
out  a  certain  interpretation  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
case. 

Gannean  then  proceeds  to  explain  his  important  discovery 
which  gives  a  new  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  mysterious  words. 
During  an  epi graphic  mission  to  the  British  Museum  in  1878, 
he  found  that  the  three  letters  on  certain  half  mina-weights, 
which  had  previously  been  read  £Hp  were  in  reality  £H£3  = 
paras  —  half.  As  the  weight  bearing  the  inscription  was  equal 
to  that  of  half  of  a  light  mina,  he  concluded  that  t^1£3  must 
mean  '  half -mina.'  This  discovery  led  him  to  decide  that  on 
the  set  of  ISliievitic  weights,  engraved  with  letters  approaching 
in  form  to  the  Aramaean  characters,  the  three  words,  J"00  = 
w  mina,'  ^pfi  =  '  shekel '  and  £H£)  =  '  half  mina,'  were  to  be 
found,  and  that  these  three  names  might  correspond  to  the 
three  chief  words  of  the  sentence  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Daniel. 
Concluding  then  that  the  mysterious  sentence  may  contain 
names  of  weights,  he  proceeds  to  apply  this  theory  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  phrase,  suggesting  a  number  of  conjectural 
translations  for  the  entire  sentence,  no  one  of  which  throws 
any  satisfactory  light  on  the  meaning.  Reading  pD*)£)  as  a 
dual  form  (pD*)3),  he  proposes,  e.  <?.,  to  transfer  the  1  from 
f'D"l£Jl  to  ^pn ,  reading  ^pfi ,  imperative  of  ^pfl  '  to  weigh,' 
and  to  translate  '  for  every  mina  weigh  two  paras '  or  '  a  mina 
is  a  mina,  weigh  two  paras ';  or,  regarding  the  verb  as  a 
preterite,  '  they  have  weighed  two  paras,'  etc.,  (see  Hebraica, 
iii.  No.  2,  pp.  96  ff.}  The  general  conclusion  at  which  he 
arrived  was  that  '  the  two  extreme  and  essential  terms  of  the 
phrase  in  Daniel  are  two  names  of  weights,  of  which  one  is 
double  the  other,  placed  in  relation  by  a  third  middle  term, 
which  is  either  a  third  name  of  weight  (that  of  shekel)  or  the 
verb  '  to  weigh,'  from  which  the  name  of  shekel  is  derived. 

This  attempt  of  Ganneau  was  followed  by  an  admirable 
paper  published  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  i.  pp. 
414— tl 8,  by  Theodor  Noldeke.  Noldeke  accepted  Ganneau's 
discovery  that  the  phrase  in  Dan.  v.  contains  names  of  weights, 


l)ii t  clearly  saw  in  p^l  the  shekel,  explaining  the  three  words 
p^  ar|d  D*"]$4  as  absolute  forms  of  tf  09  *  N^pfi »  and 
£)  respectively.  In  the  case  of  JOp  he  notices  that  the 
word  for  mina  in  Syriac  occurs  only  in  the  emphatic  state, 
KOO  ,  a  form  like  NOp  '  reed.'  Admitting  that  the  absolute 
state  of  such  words  is  scarcely  ever  found,  he  adds  that  accord- 
ing to  all  analogy,  and  especially  after  the  manner  of  adjectives 
and  participles  like  Syriac  JOT ,  Vh$ ,  (at.  emph.  N^"l  K^), 
iOD  would  have  been  in  the  older  language  the  absolute 
state  of  NOD.  Kegarding  the  NJ9  &O9  of  Dan.  v.  25 
as  a  repetition  of  the  same  word,  he  suggests  accordingly 
the  translation,  '  a  mina,  a  mina,  a  shekel  and  half-minas.' 

A  third  attempt  to  explain  the  enigma  was  advanced  in 
1887  by  Dr.  Georg  Hoffmann,  of  Kiel,  who  differed  from 
Noldeke  only  in  suggesting  that  ^pH  '  shekel '  might  be  in 
apposition  to  JOD ,  explaining  ^p/l  fcOD  as  'a  mina  in  shekel 
pieces.'  (Ztschr.  fur  Assyr.,  ii.  46-48). 

Ganneau's  discovery  and  its  critical  scrutiny  by  Noldeke 
have  established  the  fact  beyond  doubt  that  JOD  *  ^pH  and 
f'Dlfi  of  verse  25  are  to  be  considered  as  names  of  weights. 

It  does  not  seem  necessary,  however,  to  regard  tf^p  &O9  as 
a  repetition  of  the  same  word.  As  Noldeke  himself  has 
noticed,  but  did  not  adopt  in  his  interpretation,  the  form  frOD 
can  be  regarded  as  a  passive  participle  Peal  from  NJp  'to 
count,'  as  Aramaean  and  Syriac  verbs  tertice  Yodh  form  their 
passive  participles  in  this  manner  (fail).  In  this  way  the 
mysterious  sentence  may  be  translated  as  follows  :  <  There  have 
been  counted  a  mina,  a  shekel  and  half-minas.'  This  transla- 
tion which  was  suggested  by  Prof.  Haupt  in  the  session  of 
the  Semitic  Seminary  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  of  the 
year  '86-8Y,6  would  seern  to  receive  additional  confirmation, 
when,  we  consider  the  peculiar  application  of  these  names  of 

4  It  may  be  well  to  remark  that  Noldeke  (loc.  cit.,  415)  considered  it 
against  the  spirit  of  the  language  to  regard  [*D*)@  as  a  dual  in  form  as 
did  Ganneau.     (Hebraica  iii.  p.  94 ;  see  above.)    Hoffmann,   Zeitschr. 
fur  Assyr.,  ii.  46  has  pointed  out  that  in  meaning,  at  least,  the  word  has 
a  dual  force  just  as  in  Q*£^/l  '  twins.' 

5  The  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars,  No.  58,  p.  104  and  the 
Johns  Hopkins  University  Annual  Report,  1887,  p.  13, 


weights  to  the  circumstances  under  which  the  writing  ap- 
peared. 

Ganneau,  among  a  number  of  rather  fanciful  explanations 
recalled  the  Talmudic  metaphorical  usage  of  mO  and  D")£), 
4  mina  '  and  k  half-mina.'  In  the  Talmudic  writings  we  find 
occasionally  the  inferior  son  of  a  worthy  father,  called  '  a  half- 
mina  son  of  a  mina'  (PTJO  p  D")£3),  while  a  son  superior  to 
his  father  is  spoken  of  as  'a  mina  son  of  a  half-mina  '  (POO 
D15  p),  and  a  son  equal  to  his  father  as  i  a  mina  son  of  a 
mina  '  (POO  p  POO)6.  In  a  rather  vague  manner  characteristic 
of  his  whole  paper,  Ganneau  suggests  that  the  Biblical  author 
might  have  had  in  mind  some  such  allusion,  and  hints  without 
any  definite  explanation  that  a  parallel  might  have  been  meant 
between  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  father  and  Belshazzar  the 
son.  Referring  to  pD*)5,  he  mentions  that  this  word,  owing 
to  its  resemblance  to  D^£)  '  Persian,'  may  have  determined 
the  choice  of  the  saying  as  a  theme  to  explain  the  prophecy 
relative  to  the  coming  of  the  Persians.7  It  is  certainly  safe  to 
say  that  Ganneau  arrived  at  no  definite  conclusion  on  the  sub- 
ject. On  the  last  page  of  his  article,  he  fancifully  compares 
the  whole  scene  of  Chapter  v.  both  to  a  vignette  from  the 
Egyptian  '  Book  of  the  Dead  '  and  to  the  scene  often  found  on 
A—  yrian  seal-cylinders,  representing  a  god  seated  on  a  throne 
holding  a  vase  for  libations,  a  candelabrum,  an  inscription 
on  the  seal  and  two  persons,  one  of  whom  presents  the  other 
to  the  god.  Babylon  and  Egypt  he  thought  may  have  in- 
fluenced the  author  of  Daniel  in  his  description  of  the  feast 
of  Belshazzar  ! 

No'ldeke  with  his  usual  caution  attempted  nothing  beyond 
the  mere  grammatical  explanation  of  the  words,  but  Hoffmann 
(p.  46  of  his  article)  considered  that  pD")D,  '  two  half-minas,' 
referred  to  a  division  of  the  Empire  between  the  Mede  Darius 
and  the  Persian  Cyrus. 


•  Compare   Ta'anith    21",    ft  JO  ^VN    D12    p    POO    *O» 

tons  p  mo  ^'K  mo  p  mo  w  ^  mo  p  'it  «  good 

that  a  mina  son  of  a  half-mina  come  to  a  mina  son  of  a  mina,  but  not 
that  a  mina  son  of  a  mina  should  come  to  a  mina  son  of  a  half-mina,' 
cited  by  Levy,  Chalddisches  Worterbuch,  ii.  p.  46. 

'  This  paronomasia  was  remarked  also  by  Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,'  p,  389, 
Lengerke,  '  Daniel,"  p.  262.  and  others. 
2 


10 

We  have  seen  that  the  mysterious  sentence  contains  three 
names  of  weights  grouped  together  in  a  strange  order,  the  two 
greater  quantities  being  separated  by  the  lesser ;  i.  e.  rnina, 
shekel  and  half-minas.  It  may  be  supposed  that  beneath  these 
terms  lies  some  typical  meaning  which  is  not  fully  brought  out 
in  the  explanation  of  the  sentence  by  Daniel.  The  interpreta- 
tion which  the  writer  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the  prophet  is 
based  on  a  paronomasia.  Thus,  mina  (JO/p)  is  explained  by 
NJ5  '  to  count,'  <  God  has  counted  thy  kingdom  and  finished 
it.'  Shekel  (^pjjl)  is  explained  by  ^pfi  <  to  .weigh :'  <  Thou 
art  weighed  in  the  balances  and  found  wanting.'  Half-mina 
(D*!§)  is  explained  by  D*£)  <  to  divide.'  '  The  kingdom  has 
been  divided  (HDH5)  and 'given  to  the  Medes  and  Persians.' 
In  the  latter  case  there  is  clearly  a  double  paronomasia  on 
D"1S  '  Persian.' 

Professor  Haupt,  following  up  the  idea  of  Ganneau  regard- 
ing the  symbolical  meaning  of  the  words,  explained  the  rnina, 
which  is  the  largest  Babylonian  weight,  as  an  allusion  to  the 
great  King  Nebuchadnezzar ;  the  shekel,  one  sixtieth  as  valu- 
able,8 as  the  symbol  of  Belshazzar,  whom  the  author  of  Daniel 
considered  the  unworthy  son  and  successor  of  the  founder  of 
the  Babylonian  empire ;  and  the  two  half-minas  as  referring 
to  the  division  of  the  kingdom  of  Nebuchadnezzar  between 
the  Medes  and  Persians.  If  the  sentence  be  understood  in 
this  way,  as  indicating  a  comparison  of  persons,  it  becomes 
clear  that  frOD  N3D  can  hardly  be  considered  a  repetition  of 
the  same  word,  as  there  would  be  no  point  in  thus  repeating 
the  symbol  for  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  mysterious  sentence 
therefore  implies  a  scathing  comparison  of  the  unworthy  last 
king  of  Babylon  with  his  great  predecessor,  and  a  prophecy  of 

8  It  is  well  known  that  the  weight  mina  contained  60  shekels,  this 
shekel  serving  also  as  the  smallest  gold  unit ;  i.  e. ,  a  gold  shekel 
weighed  one  sixtieth  of  the  weight  mina.  The  money  mina  on  the  other 
hand  contained  only  50  shekels.  See  Levy,  Chald.  Worterbuch,  under 
XJO  anc*  compare  C.  F.  Lehmann,  in  Verhandlungen  der  physikalischen 
Gesellschaft  zu  Berlin,  published  February,  1890,  p.  95,  also  Verhand- 
lungen der  Berliner  Anthropologischen  Gesellschaft,  March,  1889,  p. 
249,  '  Encycl.  Brit.'  xvii.  631  and  Haupt,  Akkad.  Sumerische  Keil- 
schrifttexte,  p.  55,  42:  Qibit  1  ma-na,  12  siqli-tan,  '  the  interest  of  one 
mina  is  twelve  shekels;  it  e.,  at  20  per  cent. 


11 

the  speedy  downfall  of  the  native  Babylonian  dynasty  arid  the 
division  of  the  empire  between  the  Medes  and  Persians. 
Nebuchadnezzar,  practically  the  founder  of  the  Babylonian 
empire  and  really  the  greatest  name  of  the  time,  might  well 
be  called  the  mina.  The  author  of  Daniel  throughout  the 
fifth  chapter  is  perfectly  right  in  comparing  him  with  the 
insignificant  last  king.  As  will  be  seen  from  the  subsequent 
discussion  of  the  various  accounts  regarding  the  fall  of  Baby- 
lon, the  two  chief  points  in  the  later  Babylonian  history  are 
really  the  rise  and  development  of  the  empire  under  Nebuchad- 
nezzar and  its  final  overthrow  under  Belshazzar's  father 
Nabonidus,  so  that  the  Biblical  author  in  choosing  Nebu- 
chadnezzar as  the  father  of  Belshazzar,  although  inaccurate  as 
to  detail,  nevertheless  reflects  faithfully  the  general  historical 
facts  of  the  period. 

The  Medes  and  Persians  were  the  people  who  destroyed  the 
unity  of  the  Babylonian  power  and  divided  between  them  the 
great  empire  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  Medes,  a  brief  outline 
of  whose  history,  previous  to  their  subjugation  by  the  Persians, 
is  given  below,  attained  the  height  of  their  greatness  under 
Cyaxares,  who  subdued  the  Assyrians  and  laid  waste  Nineveh 
their  proud  capital.  Although  attaining  a  considerable  in- 
fluence in  the  farther  East,  they  were  certainly  never  a  world 
power  until  their  union  with  the  Persians  under  Cyrus.  This 
combination  was  sufficient  to  subjugate  the  entire  West  and  to 
establish  an  empire  which  lasted  for  centuries.  Why  the 
author  of  Daniel  introduces  a  Median  dynasty  before  the  Per- 
sians is  discussed  fully  hereafter. 

But  why  was  it  that  the  learned  scribes  whom  the  king  sum- 
moned to  decipher  the  inscription  were  totally  unable  to  read 
and  interpret  the  sentence? 

To  explain  this  difficulty  a  great  number  of  conjectures  have 
been  advanced  by  various  commentators.9  Thus  Liiderwald  in 
his  '  Critical  examination  of  the  first  six  chapters  of  Daniel,7 
(quoted  by  Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,'  p.  346)  considered  the  portent 
as  a  vision  of  the  king  alone,  which  no  one  save  the  super- 

9  For  a  collection  of  the  opinions  of  the  older  commentators,  cf,  • 
Pfeiffer  •  Dubia  Vexata,'  p.  503,  piloted  by  Berthok 


12 


naturally  gifted  Daniel  could  interpret.10  This  is  the  same  as 
Calvin's  conjecture,  which  he  offered  as  one  of  two  possible 
hypotheses :  "  probabile  est  vel  scripturam  fuisse  regi  proposi- 
tam,  et  latuisse  onmes  Chaldseos  vel  ita  excaecatos  fuisse ;  ut 
videndo  non  viderunt,  quern admodum  etiam  Dens  saepe  ejus- 
modi  stuporem  denuntiat  Judaeis."  See  edition  of  Baum, 
Cunitz  and  Reuss,  vol.  xl,  col.  704.) 

Nothing  in  the  text  of  chapter  v.  however,  seems  to  support 
such  a  view.  The  evident  terror  not  only  of  the  king  but  also 
of  his  lords,  and  the  statement  in  verse  8,  that  the  wise  men 
could  neither  read  nor  interpret  the  writing  seem  to  show  that 
the  author  had  no  intention  of  representing  the  portent  as 
merely  a  freak  of  the  king's  brain. 

Some  of  the  Talmudists  thought  that  the  words  were  writ- 
ten according  to  the  Cabbalistic  alphabet  EOfiN  ;  i.  e.  one  in 
which  the  first  letter  has  the  last  as  its  equivalent.'1  It  may  be 
well  to  note  in  connection  with  this  from  the  Ethiopic  corre- 
spondence of  Job  Ludolf  published  by  Flemming  in  the  second 
volume  of  Delitzsch  and  Haupt's  Beitrdge  zur  Assyriologie™ 
that  a  similar  cryptographic  method  of  writing  involving  the 
interchange  of  letters  was  known  to  the  Abyssinians. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  discuss  here  the  idea  advanced 
by  some  of  the  other  Talmudists  that  the  characters  of  the 
mysterious  sentence  were  arranged  in  three  lines  as  a  sort  of 
table  and  were  to  be  read  vertically  and  not  horizontally." 

10  See  D.  S.  Margoliouth,  '  Jephet  Ibn  All's  Daniel,' p.  26. 

11  See  Buxtorf,  'Lexicon  Chaldaicum  Talmudicum  et  Rabbinicum,' 
col.  248,  and  Levy,   '  Neuhebraisches  und   Chaldaisches  Worterbuch ' 
under  pl^XN  }  *1"1N  •>  DD*  •     f*)1?^^  however  is  due  to  a  process  quite 
different  to  fc^HN  •     For  tne  opinion  that  the  sentence  was  a  crypto- 
gram compare  Pfeiffer,  op.  cit.,  p.  805,  and  for  all  these  views  see  San- 
hedrim 22a. 

12  Beitrdge  zur  Assyriologie,  ii.  110. 

13  See  Ganneau,  loc.  cit.,  p.   88.     Some  considered  the  sentence  as 
an  anagram  ;  see  Levy,   '  Neuhebr.  und  Chald.  Worterb.',  under  Q^X  ; 
while  two  of  the    older    commentators,  Menochius    and   Maldonatus 
thought  that  only  the  initial  letters    of   each    word    were  written. 
(They  are  quoted  by  Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,'  p.  350).     Jephet  Ibn  Ali,  the 
Karaite,  held  the  view  that  the  words  were  written  backward  ;  for  ex- 
ample {Oft  was  arranged  as  if  it  were  QJ^  ,  and  that  the  letters  of  all 
the  four  words  were  similarly  transposed.     See  Margoliouth's  transla- 
tion, p.  26.     Pfeiffer,  p.  808,  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  words  were 
written  in  *  Chaldsean '  letters  which  were  intricately  arranged. 


13 

Thube  and  others,  at  the  end  of  the  last  century,  (quoted  by 
Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,'  351),  held  that  the  writing  may  have  ap- 
peared in  such  unusual  characters  as  to  prevent  its  decipher- 
ment by  the  hierogrammatists  ;  and  the  Gottingen  Professor  of 
Biblical  Philology,  the  late  Ernst  Bertholdt,  suggested  that  it 
may  have  been  written  in  some  complicated  flourished  hand- 
writing (Charakterschrift,  '  Daniel,'  p.  379).  It  is  interesting 
to  note  in  this  connection  that  so  great  a  scholar  as  Johann 
David  Michaelis,  of  Gottingen,  was  the  author  of  the  following 
wild  but  amusing  theory.  He  translated  the  expression  '  end 
of  the  hand'  (see  below,  Appendix  II.  note  to  verse  5),  by 
'  the  inner  surface  of  the  hand.'  That  is,  the  hand  must  have 
appeared  to  the  king  as  if  writing  from  the  other  side  of  the 
wall,  which  by  some  mysterious  means  had  become  transpar- 
ent! The  writing  was  therefore  reversed  as  if  in  a  mirror, 
which  fact  remained  unnoticed  until  Daniel  was  summoned 
(see  Michaelis,  '  Daniel,'  pp.  49-50).  Some  scholars,  on  the 
other  hand,  believed  that  the  inscription  may  have  been  in  a 
foreign  language  or  character  unknown  to  the  wise  men. 
Thus  Prideaux  (quoted  by  Bertholdt,  348)  suggested  Old 
Phoenician,  while  Pusey  ('  Daniel,'  376)  believed  it  may  have 
been  written  in  the  old  Hebrew  script.  Finally,  s*ome  recent 
critics,  evidently  under  Assyriological  influence,  have  inclined 
to  the  opinion  that  the  words  presented  themselves  to  the  king 
in  rhe  Babylonian  ideographic  character.14 

The  question  as  to  the  difficulty  of  decipherment  is  really 
narrowed  down  to  one  of  two  hypotheses.  The  reason  why  the 
learned  scribes  whom  the  king  had  summoned  were  totally 
unable  to  read  or  interpret  the  writing  must  have  been  that  the 
mysterious  sentence  appeared  either  in  a  foreign  language  or 
in  an  unusual  form  of  the  vernacular.  Had  the  warning  been 
written  in  a  foreign  language,  the  probability  is  that  it  would 
have  been  immediately  recognized  at  so  cosmopolitan  a  court 
as  the  Babylonian,  which  had  come  in  contact  with  so  many 
foreign  nations.  Then,  too,  had  the  writing  appeared  in  an 

14  So,  for  instance,  Andrea,  in  his  article  on  the  Feast  of  Belshazzar 
in  Beweis  des  Glaubens,  1888,  pp.  263-264,  and  de  Lagarde  in  his  admir- 
able review  of  E.  Ha  vet's  La  modernite  des  prophetes,  in  Mittheilungen, 
iv.  p.  U64  =  Gott.  Gel  Anz.,  1891,  p.  519. 


14 

unknown  idiom,  the  effect  of  the  interpretation  would  have 
been,  to  a  great  extent,  lost  on  the  king.  But  as  soon  as  the 
explanation  was  given,  Belshazzar  understood  it  perfectly. 

It  is  certainly  most  natural  to  suppose  that  the  inscription 
was  originally  wrritten  in  the  Babylonian  language  and  in  the 
cuneiform  script,  having  been  translated  later  and  handed  down 
in  the  Aramaean  in  the  form  which  we  find  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel.15  This  view  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  the  sen- 
tence can  be  reproduced  in  Babylonian  with  surprisingly  little 
change. 

The  Aramaean  sentence,  as  given  in  the  twenty-fifth  verse 
of  the  fifth  chapter,  reads  f»D*l*3l  ^pfl  NJ£  XJO .  As  stated 
above,  the  first  JOO  is  probably  to  be  considered  as  a  passive 
participle  from  NJp  '  to  count.'  In  this  case  the  correspond- 
ing form  in  Assyrian  would  be  m-ani.19  The  second  JOp 
meaning  mina  is  equivalent  to  the  Assyrian  manu  =  '  mina,' 
usually  written  ideographically  ma-nd  and  in  form  the  pas- 
sive participle  of  manu  'to  count.'  The  Assyrian  word  for 
mina,  although  generally  occurring  ideographically,  is  occasion- 
ally found  written  plene.  Thus  in  Nebuchadnezzar  17,  6  ;  189.  5, 

15  Kamphausen  in  his  pamphlet,  '  Das  Buch  Daniel  und  die  neuere  Ge- 
schichtsforschuiig,'  1893,  pp.  45,  46,  has  unintentionally  misrepresented 
me,  as  stating  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  Circulars,  No.  98,  p.  94,  that  the 
author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  familiar  with  the  cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions !    I  merely  indicated  that  the  original  of  the  mysterious  sentence 
may  have  been  in  Babylonian. 

16  Passives  with  internal  vowel  change  have  not  been  lost  in  Assy- 
rian but  are  not  developed.     The  active  and  passive  participles  are  not 
yet  sharply  distinguished,  the  difference  being  merely  arbitrary.     For 
examples  of  the  passive  participle,  cf.  the  frequent  kima  Idbirisu  satir 
=  'written  like  its  original,'  and  xapux  epru  =  'dust  is  spread.'    See 
Haupt,  Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  1878,  p.  244.     We  may 
compare  in  this  connection  the  frequent  passive  meaning  of  the  Inten- 
sive Permansive.     See  Zimmern,  Busspsalmen,  p.  11. 

The  Assyrian  Permansive  must  be  considered  the  prototype  of  the 
common  Semitic  Perfect,  as  there  are  no  evidences  that  Assyrian  once 
possessed  arid  then  lost  its  Perfect.  J.  A.  Knudtzon  in  the  Ztschr.  fur 
Assyriologie,  vii,  p.  48  (April,  1892),  goes  too  far,  however,  in  demand- 
ing a  common  name  for  both  the  Permansive  and  Perfect,  as  they  are 
by  no  means  fully  identical.  The  Assyrian  Permansive  is  not  a  stereo- 
typed tense  like  the  ordinary  Semitic  Perfect,  as  the  language  can  use 
any  noun  or  adjective  in  a  permansive  sense  by  suffixing  the  pronomi- 
nal endings.  See  in  this  connection  Haupt.  loc.  cit.,  p.  246. 


15 

in  Tallquist,  i  Sprache  der  Gontracte  Nabuna'ids,'^.  96,  we  find 
the  form  ma-mi-u  ;  in  Nebuch.  <±6.  8. 4.  in  Strassmaier,  i  Baby- 
lonisclie  Texte,'  ma-ni ;  and  in  Nebuch.  67.4;  176.  5 ;  282.5, 
in  Strassmaier,  "  Bab.  Texte,'  ma-ni-e.  Manu  is  a  form  like 
qanu  'reed.'17 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  familiar  Mammon  (Mapcovas) 
of  the  ]^ew  Testament  may  be  a  loan  word  from  the  same  stem 
as  man  a,  inina.  There  is  an  Assyrian  word  manninu  proba- 
bly meaning  '  a  vessel  capable  of  holding  a  mina  full,'  which 
occurs  in  the  El  Amarna  inscriptions,  frequently  in  connection 
with  />/'//'>/.  Jensen  considered  rightly  that  Ingru  and  manninu 
are  the  prototype  of  the  Mandaean  &OW01  SOJHN  '  money 
and  property.'  with  metathesis  in  the  case  of  bigru  and 
K^IX  .  A  similar  change  of  consonants  he  finds  in  barguttu 
'  stonecutter '  and  K^DljnK.18  Noldeke,  'Mand.  Gram.', 
p.  50,  connects  Mandaean  JO1TD  with  the  Syriac  U^v^ , 
Ma/iowa?.  It  is  extremely  probable,  therefore,  that  mann</>" 
is  the  original  of  Ma/iwa?.  Hoffmann's  idea  is,  of  course, 
untenable  that  T=^£O  is  a  loan  word  from  the  Phoenician 
D3O '  treasures,'  which,  he  thinks,  is  connected  with  the 
Greek  vdfu(a)fia.  (See  Nestle,  '  Syriac  Grammar ' — Engl.  edi- 
tion, p.  xi.)  D3D  is  probably  a  plural  of  H3D ,  mina,  and 
is  consequently  purely  a  Semitic'stem.  (Compare  Levy, 4  Phoe- 
nizisches  Worterbuch,'  1864.) 

Shekel,  the  third  word  of  the  mysterious  sentence,  by  regu- 
lar mutation  of  j"l  and  t^,  corresponds  to  the  Assyrian  siqlu, 
from  saqdJu  4to  weigh/  The  word  is  almost  invariably  writ- 
ten ideographically  TU,  but  the  form  siqlu  is  now  established 
as  the  proper  pronunciation.19 

17  Note  that  a  number  of  forms  like  qanu  suffer  apocope  of  the  long 
final  vowel  in  the  construct  state.  Thus  qanu — qan;  sadu,  '  moun- 
tain, 'nad;  navti,  'bearer,'  naS ;  rasu,  'possessor,'  ras ;  rabu,  'great,' 
rob. 

*  For  the  Mandrcan  N^l^^l  JO^HX ,  see  Noldeke,  Manddische 
Grammatik,  p.  50,  and  for  fc^DUIN  compare  Jensen,  Kosmologie, 
293,  rem.  2 ;  352.  rem.  For  examples  of  metathesis  see  Zimmern,  Zeit- 
sehrift  fur  Assyriologie.  \.  164,  n.  4. 

19  See  Bruno  Meissner,  Ztsch.  fur  Assyriologie,  vii.  (April,  1892),  p.  20. 
Altbdbylonisclies  Priuatrecht,  p.  93.  Delitzsch,  Assyriscties  Warter- 
buch,'  44,  n.  4,  and  Lehmann  in  a  metrological  paper  in  the  Verhand- 
hingen  der  Berliner  Anthropologischen  Gesellschaft,  June  20,  1891,  p. 


16 

Oppert's  reading  for  TU,  daragmana  (Ztschr.  fur  Assy- 
riologie,  i.  430),  he  has  himself  abandoned.  (See  Beitrdge  zur 
Assyriologie,  i.  496.)  Siqlu  is  a  form  like  sibtu  i  staff ' ;  igru 
4  hire,'  etc. 

The  last  word  of  the  phrase  pD*)?  '  half  minas,'  plural  of 
ND"l£j ,  is  equivalent  to  the  Assyrian  parsu  '  a  part,'  from 
pardsu  '  to  separate.'20  Parsu  means  technically  a  section  of 
a  chapter  or  a  paragraph.  (See  Keilinschr.,  Bibliothek,  ii. 
p.  284,  I.  39.) 

Combining  then  these  words  as  in  the  Aramaean  of  Daniel, 
the  supposed  Assy ro-Baby Ionian  original  may  be  restored  as  fol- 
lows :  mani  mana  siqlu  u  parsdni,  i  there  have  been  counted 
a  miiia,  a  shekel  and  parts.'21  (Parts  of  a  mina  =  half -minas.) 
4  Counted '  means,  of  course,  in  this  connection,  '  the  following 
has  been  fixed  by  fate.'  We  may  compare  the  use  of  H3Q  in 
Isaiah  Ixv.  12,  'and  I  will  allot  you  to  the  sword.'  (VT3D1 
D")  rh  D3fi#) ;  Psalm  cxlvii.  4,  '  He  fixes  the  number  of  the 
stars1  (D'dri'D1?  *)3pP  H^IO): 

If  it  be  thus  assumed  that  the  mysterious  inscription  appeared 
in  the  Babylonian  language  and  in  cuneiform  characters,  it  is 
easy  to  explain  the  inability  of  the  king  and  his  lords,  and  even 
of  the  skilled  scribes  to  decipher  the  writing,  as  an  ideographic 
rendering  of  these  names  of  weights  would  have  baffled  the 

518,  n.  1.  The  stem  saqdlu  may  be  a  shaphel  formation  from  qdlu  '  be 
light.'  Compare  sakdnu  probably  from  pp  and  sardru  from  "V)K  . 
In  the  case  of  saqdlu,  however,  the  §  is  a  *$}  i,  appearing  in  Arabic  as 
v£j,  while  the  §  of  the  shaphel  is  «»,  because  we  find  it  in  Arabic  as 
^  .  We  may  explain  this  by  supposing  that  such  a  form  as  JULJ 
with  o>  was  borrowed  from  a  dialect  where  the  original  $  of  the 
shaphel  was  lisped  like  ]"| .  Compare  the  case  of  p^HB  •  See  below, 
Appendix  II.,  note  to  verse  7,  and  Beitrdge  zur  Assyr.,  i.  181,  note  2. 

20 pardsu  =  ( separate,'  in  Asurb.,  ix.  46  ;  'check,  stop,'  in  Sennach., 
vi.  14,  iv.  R.  57,  7a,  East  India  House  Inscr.,  ii.  19  ; — '  quarrel,'  in  iv.  58, 
22  ;— '  alienate,'  in  Asurb.,  iii.  83. 

21  Professor  Haupt  informs  me  that  Dr.  P.  Jensen  of  Strassburg  in  a 
University  lecture  explained  the  mysterious  words  of  Dan.  v.  as  having 
probably  come  from  some  Assyrian  proverb,  which  he  thinks  might 
have  read  about  as  follows :  manu  mane  Saqlu  parse.  '  minas  were 
counted  but  half  minas  were  weighed.'  Jensen  thought  that  this 
phrase  was  used  whenever  anything  proved  of  less  value  than  first 
appearances  seemed  to  warrant. 


17 

ingenuity  of  the  most  expert  scholars  of  the  Babylonian  court. 
Of  course  it  cannot  be  denied,  as  Lagarde  has  pointed  out,  that 
the  ideographic  values  of  these  four  words,  4  count,  mina,  shekel 
and  part/  were  undoubtedly  signs  with  which  any  educated 
Hal  >y  Ionian  was  familiar.  (fc  Mittheilungen,'  iv.  364.)  If,  how- 
ever. we  suppose  that  the  ideograms  were  written  close  together 
without  anv  division  between  the  individual  words,  a  style  of 
writing  we  often  meet  with  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions,  thus: 


it  would  be  just  as  hard  to  read  as  a  rebus.and  would  puzzle 
tlif  most  skillful  decipherer.  The  difficulty  would  have  been 
still  more  increased  if  the  ideograms  had  been  grouped  in  some 
unusual  way,  severing  the  natural  connection  of  the  component 
elements  ;  for  example,  thus  : 


If  the  signs  had  been  written  in  this  manner  it  would  have 
been  almost  impossible  to  arrive  at  their  true  meaning.  The 
first  combination,  SID-MA,  might  have  some  fifteen  different 
meanings,  the  second  group,  XA-TIT-U,  might  signify  'is  fit' 
or  •  suitable.'  while  the  third  and  last,  BAR-BAR,  is  capable 
of  explanation  in  a  variety  of  ways."  Of  course,  as  soon  as 
one  is  told  the  meaning  of  the  combination,  the  sentence  at 
once  becomes  clear. 

De  Lagarde  (I.  c.)  has  amusingly  remarked  that  the  riddle  is 
of  the  same  nature  as  that  of  the  Innsbrucker  who,  as  a  greet- 
ing to  his  emperor  coming  to  the  Tyrolean  capital,  had  the  fig- 
ure of  a  Franciscan  monk  painted  on  his  house  with  the  word 
'  wie  '  written  over  it.  The  rebus  is  to  read  i  Wie  Franz  ist 
kaner  '  (  Tyrolese  pronunciation  for  '  keiner  ').  This,  however, 
is  hardly  a  good  parallel.  A  better  illustration  of  the  nature 
of  the  mysterious  sentence  may  be  found  in  the  tricky  Latin 
phrases  often  given  in  Latin  primers  in  Germany  :  i.  e.  '  no  bis 
per  pontem,'  '  anser  bibit  magis  ter,'  '  mea  mater  est  mala  sus,' 
etc. 

22  For  SID-MA  see  Brimnow's  '  List,1  nos.  5964-5981  and  5997-8.     For 
iidlu.  meaning  'is  fit,  suitable,'  see  'Nimrod  Epic.*  67.  7.  18.  while  for 
BAR-BAR,  compare  again  Brunnow.  no.  1728  ff. 
3 


CHAPTER   SECOND. 

THE   HISTORICAL  INACCURACIES    OF   THE   FIFTH   CHAPTER 
OF   DANIEL. 

The  above  more  or  less  conjectural  explanations  have  been 
offered  under  the  supposition  that  the  account  given  in  the 
fifth  chapter  of  Daniel  is  to  a  certain  extent  historical.  It  can- 
not be  denied,  however,  that  if  the  fifth  chapter,  and  indeed 
the  entire  book  of  Daniel  be  regarded  as  pretending  to  full 
historical  authority,  the  Biblical  record  is  open  to  all  manner 
of  attack.  The  Book  of  Daniel  must  not  be  considered  as 
intended  by  the  author  to  be  a  veracious  account  of  events 
which  took  place  at  the  time  of  the  fall  of  Babylon,  but  rather 
as  a  political  pamphlet  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
It  is  now  the  general  opinion  of  most  scholars  who  study  the 
Old  Testament  from  a  critical  point  of  view,  that  the  Book  of 
Daniel  cannot  have  originated,  according  to  the  accepted 
theory,*  at  the  time  of  Cyrus.  The  following  are  the  chief 
reasons  for  such  a  conclusion. 

It  should  be  noticed,  first,  that  the  position  of  the  Book 
among  the  Hagiographa  instead  of  among  the  DWD3  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  it  must  have  been  introduced  after  the 
closing  of  the  Prophetic  Canon.  The  explanation  that  the 
Apocalyptic  nature  of  the  work  did  not  entitle  it  to  a  position 
among  the  Prophetic  books  is  hardly  satisfactory.  Some  com- 
mentators believed  that  Daniel  was  not  an  actual  W21  or 
prophet,  in  the  proper  sense,  but  only  a  seer  (Jlfh — so  Haver- 
nick),  or  else  that  he  was  a  prophet  merely  by  natural  gifts, 
but  not  by  official  standing.1  If  Daniel,  however,  had  really 

*  See  additional  note  A. 

1  The  explanation  originated  with  the  Rabbinical  writers  that  Daniel 
had  the  £HpH  HI*)  'spirit  of  holiness,'  but  not  the  nNlDJH  fill 
'the  official  inspiration '  (Qamchi,  'Preface  to  the  Psalms';  Maimon. 
•  More  Nebochim,'  2.  41,  119,  quoted  by  Bertholdt,  p.  xiii).  The  Rab- 
binical device  was  followed  and  elaborated  by  a  number  of  the  later 
orthodox  commentators.  Thus,  Auberlen,  '  Daniel,  pp.  34,  35,  Franz 
Delitzsch  in  Herzog  und  Plitt's  Real  Encycl.  iii.  271,  272,  '  Commen- 
tary on  Isaiah,'  p.  3,  Keil,  •  Daniel, 'p.  23,  etc.  See  also  in  this  connec- 
tion Kranichf eld. 'Daniel,' p.  9,  Lengerke,  '  Daniel, 'p.  565,  etc. 


19 

seen  the  visions  which  are  attributed  to  him  by  the  work  bear- 
ing- his  name,  he  was  certainly  a  great  prophet,  and,  as  has  been 
pointed  out  by  Bleek,  would  have  had  fully  as  much  right  to 
lie  ranked  as  such  as  Amos,  Ezekiel  or  Zechariah.2  The  natu- 
ral explanation  regarding  the  position  of  the  Book  of  Daniel 
is  that  the  work  could  not  have  been  in  existence  at  the  time 
of  the  completion  of  the  second  part  of  the  canon,  as  otherwise 
the  collectors  of  the  prophetic  writings,  who  in  their  case  did 
not  neglect  even  the  parable  of  Jonah,  would  hardly  have 
ignored  the  record  of  such  a  great  prophet  as  Daniel  is  repre- 
sented to  be. 

Secondly,  the  silence  of  Jesus  Sirach  concerning  Daniel  seems 
to  showT  that  the  prophet  was  unknown  to  that  late  writer. 
Jesus  Sirach,  in  his  list  of  celebrated  men  (chapter  49),  makes 
no  mention  of  Daniel,  but  passes  from  Jeremiah  to  Ezekiel  and 
then  to  the  twelve  minor  prophets  and  Zerubbabel.  If  Daniel 
had  been  known  to  Jesus  Sirach  we  would  certainly  expect  to 
find  him  in  this  list,  probably  between  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel. 
Again  the  only  explanation  appears  to  be  that  the  Book  of 
Daniel  was  not  known  to  Jesus  Sirach,  who  wrote  between 
200  and  180  B.  C.  Had  so  celebrated  a  person  as  Daniel 
been  known,  he  could  hardly  have  escaped  mention  in  such  a 
complete  list  of  Israel's  leading  spirits.  Hengstenberg  re- 
marked that  Ezra  and  Mordecai  were  also  left  unmentioned, 
but  the  case  is  not  parallel.  Daniel  is  represented  in  the  work 
attributed  to  him  as  a  great  prophet,  while  Ezra  appears  as 
nothing  more  than  a  rather  prominent  priest  and  scholar. 

A  third  argument  against  an  early  origin  for  the  book  is  the 
fact  that  the  post-exilic  prophets  exhibit  no  trace  of  its  influence. 
Had  the  Book  of  Daniel  been  extant  and  generally  known 
since  the  time  of  Cyrus,  it  would  be  reasonable  to  look  for 
some  sign  of  its  power  among  the  writings  of  prophets  like 
Haggai,  Zechariah  and  Malachi. 

2  Bleek,  '  Einleitung,'  5th  ed.,  418.  In  the  LXX.  the  book  is  placed 
directly  after  Ezekiel,  which  shows  that  the  translators  considered  it  a 
prophetic  work.  Compare  in  this  connection  the  opinion  of  Jachja 
(quoted  by  Bertholdt,  loc.  cit.)  who  attributed  to  Daniel  the  highest 
degree  of  prophetic  inspiration  ;  ^"OH  HV 


20 

In  addition  to  this,  the  actual  contents  of  the  book  itself 
seem  to  preclude  the  supposition  of  even  an  approximately 
contemporary  origin  for  the  work.  The  Book  of  Daniel  differs 
materially  from  all  other  prophetic  writings  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  especial  details  of  its  prophecies.  Other  prophets 
confine  themselves  to  vague  and  general  predictions,  but  the 
Book  of  Daniel  gives  a  detailed  account  of  historical  events 
which  may  easily  be  recognized  and  identified  through  the 
thin  veil  of  prophetic  mystery  thrown  lightly  around  them. 
If  it  be  supposed  that  the  book  originated  at  the  time  of 
Cyrus,  the  positiveness  with  which  events  of  the  far  future  are 
prophesied  is  certainly  strange.  It  is  highly  suggestive  that 
while  the  Book  of  Daniel  contains  an  account  of  a  long  series 
of  historical  events,  just  those  occurrences  which  are  the  most 
remote  from  the  assumed  standpoint  of  the  writer  are  the  most 
correctly  stated,  while  the  nearer  we  approach  to  the  author's 
supposed  time,  the  more  inaccurate  does  he  become.  This  has 
especial  application  to  the  last  chapters,  x.-xii.,  where  the  com- 
bats between  the  Ptolemaides  and  Seleucides  are  so  clearly  laid 
before  the  reader  that  the  visions  have  more  the  appearance  of 
history  than  prophecy.  In  addition  to  this  correctness  of 
detail,  the  chronological  reckoning  by  days  for  future  events  is 
very  striking.  (Of.  chapter  viii.  14;  xii.  11,  12.) 

"The  Hebrew  prophets  rarely  set  definite  times  for  future 
occurrences,  and  when  they  do,  give  a  date  in  round  numbers. 
(Except,  of  course,  in  the  interpolated  passage,  Is.  vii.  8 — in 
which  connection  see  Delitzsch, '  Comm.  on  Isaiah,'^).  137.)  The 
prophecies  in  the  Book  of  Daniel  seem  to  centre  on  the  period 
of  Aiitiochus  Epiphanes,  when  the  Syrian  prince  w^as  endeav- 
oring to  suppress  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  substitute  for  it 
the  Greek  idolatry.  These  passages  either  break  off  directly 
with  the  overthrow  of  this  prince  or  else  add  a  prophecy  of 
freedom  for  God's  people  from  all  oppressions  and  the  an- 
nouncement of  a  Messianic  Kingdom  and  the  resurrection  of 
the  dead.  A  comparison  of  the  Apocalyptic  and  narrative 
chapters  makes  it  apparent  that  we  have  the  same  prophecies 
in  all,  repeated  in  different  forms.  The  vision  of  the  colossal 
image  in  eh.  ii.  is  evidently  identical  with  the  vision  of  the  four 
beasts  in  ch.  vii.  In  the  ;  Little  Horn,'  ch.  vii.  8 ;  viii.  9  and 


21 

the  wicked  prince  described  in  clis.  ix.-xi.,  who  is  to  work  such 
evil  among  the  saints,  we  have  clearly  one  and  the  same  per- 
son. Moreover,  in  all  the  prophecies,  a  period  of  trial  and 
tribulation  is  followed  by  the  triumph*  of  the  Lord  and  his 
saints.  According  to  the  Book  of  Daniel  four  distinct  empires 
are  to  arise,  during  which  time  the  sufferings  of  the  saints  are 
to  increase  until  they  culminate  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  empire 
under  a  prince  worse  than  all  his  predecessors,  after  which  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  to  appear.  A  careful  examination  of  the 
book  makes  it  apparent  that  the  author  believed  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Belshazzar,  who  was 
displaced  by  Darius  the  Median,  and  he  in  turn  followed  by 
Cyrus  the  Persian.  It  seems  evident,  therefore,  that  in  the 
mind  of  the  author  the  four  empires  were :  first,  the  Bajbylo- 
nian,  represented  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  his  immediate  suc- 
cessor, Belshazzar ;  second,  that  of  Darius  the  Median ;  third, 
the  Persian  empire  of  Cyrus,  and  fourth,  the  empire  of  Alex- 
ander and  his  successors,  culminating  at  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  (Compare  Keuss, '  Geschichte  des  Alten  Testaments,' 
p.  595^.)  It  is  now  generally  recognized  that  ch.  xi.  21-45, 
refers  to  the  evil  deeds  of  Antiochus  IV.  and  his  attempts 
against  the  Jewish  people  and  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  In 
chapter  xii.  follows  the  promise  of  salvation  from  the  tyrant. 
In  ch.  viii.  the  king  symbolized  by  the  '  Little  Horn,'  of  whom 
it  is  said  that  he  will  come  from  one  of  four  kingdoms  which 
shall  be  formed  from  the  Greek  empire  after  the  death  of  its 
tirst  king,  can  be  none  other  than  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  In 
like  manner  do  the  references  in  ch.  ix.  plainly  allude 
to  this  prince.  (Compare  in  this  connection  Bleek,  'Ein- 
leitung,'  pp.  ±'20  jf.)  It  would  be  extremely  difficult  to  recon- 
cile these  facts  with  the  theory  of  a  Babylonian  authorship  for 
the  book,  because,  setting  aside  the  marvel  of  such  accurate 
prophecy  centuries  before  the  events  referred  to,  it  would  be 
natural  to  expect  that  a  prophet  of  the  time  of  the  Babylonian 
captivity  would  rather  direct  his  attention  to  the  freedom  of 
his  people  from  their  servitude  in  Babylon  than  from  the 
oppression  of  a  king  who  ruled  centuries  later.  It  would  be 

*  See  additional  note  B. 


22 

natural,  too,  to  expect  in  an  early  work  prophecies  of  the 
return  of  the  Jews  to  Palestine,  as  in  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and 
Isaiah,  rather  than  the  proclamation  of  an  ideal  Messianic  king- 
dom, such  as  we  find  in  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

Not  only  do  the  Apocalyptic  portions  of  the  book  seem  to 
preclude  the  theory  of  a  Babylonian  authorship,3  but  the 
numerous  inaccuracies  in  the  narrative  sections  make  it 
equally  difficult  to  hold  such  a  view.  Such  statements  as 
are  found,  for  example,  in  the  fifth  chapter  only,  which 
will  be  fully  discussed  below,  can  hardly  date  from  Baby- 
lonian times.  'No  writer  living  at  the  Babylonian  court 
of  Cyrus  could  have  asserted,  for  instance,  that  Belshazzar 
was  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,4  or  have  interpolated  a 
Medjan  ruler  between  the  last  king  of  Babylon  and  the  Per- 
sians. Nor  are  these  historical  inaccuracies  by  any  means 
confined  to  ch.  v.  Among  the  most  important  occurring  in 
other  narrative  sections,  should  be  mentioned ;  first,  The 
chronological  error  in  ch.  i.,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  took  Jerusa- 
lem as  king  of  Babylon  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  while 
it  is  known  from  Jeremiah  xxv.  1,  that  the  former  did  not 
begin  to  reign  in  Babylon  until  the  fourth  year  of  the  latter, 
and  that  the  Babylonians  in  the  ninth  month  of  the  fifth  year 
of  Jehoiakim  had  not  yet  come  to  Jerusalem.  (From  Jeremiah 
xxxvi.  9,  29  ;  see  Bleek,  op.  cit..  427).  The  origin  of  this  error 
has  been  traced  to  a  false  combination  of  2  Cliron.  xxxvi. 
6f.  and  2  Kings,  xxiv.  1.  (See  Kamphausen,  'Das  Buch 
Daniel  und  die  neuere  Geschichtsforschung,'  p.  17).  Secomt, 
The  statement  in  ch.  ii.  1,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  had  his 
famous  dream  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign,  is  in  direct 

3  For  the  evident  lateness  of  the  second  part  of  the  book,  cf.  Bleek, 
'  Einleitung,'  p.  420  ;  Strack,  Herzog  and  Plitt's  '  Eeal  Encyclopaedic,' 
vii2.  419  ;  Hoffmann,  'Antiochus,'  iv.  pp.  82  ff ;  Driver,  '  Introduction  to 
the  Study  of  Old  Testament  Literature,' p.  461.     Tt  has  been  remarked 
that  the  contents  of  ch.  ix,  referring  to  Jerusalem,  would  remove  all 
further  doubt  as  to  the  late  origin.      (See  Derenbourg,  Hebraica,  iv.  8, 
note  1.) 

4  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  as  early  as  A.D.  1757,  Goebel.  'De 
Belsasaro,'  (see  Reuss,  '  Geschichte,'  p.  602),  called  attention  to  this  his- 
torical error.     Reuss  mentions  also  Sartorius,    '  Hist.    Excid.   Babyl.' 
(Tubingen,  1766) ;  Norberg,  Opp.  Hi.  222. 


23 

contradiction  to  ch.  i.  where  it  is  asserted  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
was  king  when  Daniel  and  his  companions  were  taken  into 
captivity  and  that  the  latter  were  trained  three  years  at  court. 
The  interpretation  of  the  dream  must  have  taken  place  after 
this  period  of  three  years,  and  consequently  later  than  the 
second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

An  additional  evidence  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  must  have 
been  written  at  a  considerably  later  period  than  the  Persian  con- 
quest of  Babylon  may  be  found  in  the  presence  of  both  Persian 
and  Greek  loanwords.  The  occurrence  of  the  former  shows  con- 
clusively that  the  book  must  have  originated  after  the  conquest 
of  Babylon,5  while  the  presence  of  Greek  words  appears  to 
preclude  the  possibility  of  setting  the  origin  of  the  work  prior 
to  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great.  The  names  of  the  three 
musical  instruments  in  chapter  iii  ;  fT^SOID  ,  verse  5,  15  (also 
v.  10  in  the  form  frJsD'D).  pfiJDS  and  CTWp'  are  undoubt- 
edly loanwords  from  the  Greek  avpfavia,  -^a\r^piov  -and 


It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  these  three  essentially  Greek 
names  of  musical  instruments  were  current  at  the  court  of 
Nebuchadnezzar.  While  there  was  in  all  likelihood  some 
intercourse,  even  at  that  time,  between  the  Asiatics  and  the 
lonians  in  Asia  Minor,  it  does  not  seem  probable  that  the 
influence  was  then  strong  enough  to  cause  the  adoption  by  the 
Babylonians  of  Greek  musical  instruments  and  even  of  their 
Greek  names.  In  Assyrian  literature  the  first  mention  of  the 
lonians  occurs  in  the  inscriptions  of  Sargon  (722-705  B.  C.) 
who  relates  that  he  conquered  the  '  Yam/id  '  who  dwelt  '  in  the 

6  The  theory  advanced  by  Strack  in  Zockler's  '  Handbuch,'  i.  165,  and 
'  Real  Encycl.  ,  vii.-  419,  that  the  occurrence  of  Persian  loanwords  nec- 
essarily points  to  a  pre-Maccabaean  origin  for  these  sections  does  not 
seem  tenable.  It  is  quite  conceivable  that  Persian  loanwords  should 
have  remained  until  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  For  the  opin- 
ion that  the  origin  of  the  book  of  Daniel  must  be  pre-Maccabaean  see 
Additional  Note  B. 

6  For  the  termination   -os  in    Hebrew,   compare  Ges.    '  Thesaurus,' 
p.  1215. 

7  Compare  in  this  connection  Cheyne,  *  Encycl.  Britannica,'  vi.  803, 
807  ;    Driver,  ;  Introduction,'  470.     Derenbourg,  Hebraica.  ii.  pp.  Iff. 
It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  t/>a/r///j/ov  was  a  favorite  instrument 
of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.     (See  Polybius  ;  Athena* 

o» 


24 

midst  of  the  sea.'  Abydenus  in  Eusebius  (Glironicon,  ed. 
Schoene,  i.  1.  35)  tells  of  Sargon's  successor  Sennacherib  that 
he  conquered  the  fleet  of  the  Greeks  on  the  Cilician  coast : 
'In  maris  litore  terrae  Cilicum  classem  navali  proelio  cer- 
tantem  navium  Graecorum  profligans  vicit.'  Sennacherib 
himself  relates  that  he  manned  his  ships  with  '  maldxe 
®£kvrrd,  dlfidund,  mCliYamna]  i.  e.  'with  Tyrian,  Sidonian 
and  Ionian  sailors.'  (Semi.  Smith,  1.  91.)  Neither  in  the 
later  Assyrian  nor  in  the  Babylonian  inscriptions  does  any 
further  allusion  to  the  Greeks  occur.  In  fact  not  until 
the  time  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  two  hundred  years  later  do 
we  hear  anything  more  of  them.  This  king  speaks  frequently 
of  a  ' mAt  YamanuJ  evidently  referring,  not  to  Greece  proper 
but  to  the  Greek  territory  in  Asia  Minor.  (See  in  this 
connection  Delitzsch  Wo  lag  das  ParadiesJ  pp.  248  if.,  and 
Schrader  Iteilinschriften  nnd  das  alte  Testament,  81-82). 
In  view  of  the  absolute  silence  of  the  Babylonian  inscriptions, 
it  may  be  inferred  that  the  Greek  influence,  later  so  powerful 
had  not  yet  begun  to  make  itself  perceptible  in  the  East. 
With  regard  to  the  opinion  of  Praetorius  in  his  review  of 
Delitzsch,  '  Hebrew  and  Assyrian,'  in  Kuhn's  Literaturlrtatt 
fur  orientalische  Philologie,  i.  195,  that  perhaps  centuries 
before  Asurbanipal  a  loanword  from  the  non-Semitic  languages 
of  anterior  Asia  may  have  crept  into  the  idioms  of  the  Assy- 
rians, Hebrews,  Aramaeans  and  even  of  the  non-Semitic  Sumer- 
ians,  it  seems  to  me  difficult  to  come  to  any  definite  conclusion. 
It  appears  equally  possible  to  consider  the  Assyrian  pilai/t/n 
axe  (the  word  in  question)  either  as  a  loanword  from  the 
Greek  TreXe/cf?  according  to  this  suggestion,8  or  to  suppose 
that  the  word  is  original  in  Semitic  and  crept  into  the  Indo- 
Germanic  languages  at  a  very  early  date,  perhaps  even  before 
they  differentiated.  (So  Lehmann  '  Samassumukin '  p.  127, 
who  believes  that  the  word  is  from  the  Sumerian  ~balu(y)). 
At  any  rate  this  word  certainly  gives  no  assistance  towards 
determining  the  period  when  Greeks  and  Semites  first  met. 

8  Both  Frankel  and  Praetorius  hold  this  opinion.  Compare  also 
Lagarde  'Ges.  Abhandl.',  49.  10.,  Haupt  '  Sumerische  Familiengesetze,' 
55,  n.  5.  Delitzsch  'Assyrische  Studien,'  133— all  quoted  Haupt, 
'  Beitrage,'  i.  171  n. 


25 


The  object  of  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  in  both 
the  apocalyptic  and  narrative  portions  of  the  work,  appears  to 
be  to  comfort  his  oppressed  people,  demonstrating  in  the  one  case, 
by  means  of  prophetic  visions,  the  nearness  of  their  salvation 
and  showing  in  the  narrative  sections  by  means  of  carefully 
arranged  tales  the  inevitable  overthrow  of  blasphemers  against 
God.  The  stories  of  the  fiery  furnace  and  the  lion's  den  are 
both  excellent  illustrations  of  the  divine  protection  of  the 
faithful  during  the  pagan  persecution,  while  in  the  account  of 
the  lycanthropy  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  chapter  iv.  the  author 
seems  to  have  had  the  intention  of  holding  up  the  fate  of  the 
mighty  Babylonian  prince  who  had  destroyed  Jerusalem  and 
the  Temple,  as  a  warning  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  to  desist  in 
time  from  his  blasphemous  opposition  to  the  King  of  Kings. 

To  proceed,  however,  more  especially  to  the  fifth  chapter. 
As  has  been  mentioned  above,  it  must  be  admitted  that  this 
section,  which  is  the  Biblical  record  of  the  fall  of  the  Babylon- 
ian dynasty,  contains  certain  striking  inaccuracies.  As  will 
be  seen  subsequently,  however,  in  spite  of  the  manifest  errors 
of  the  writer,  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  account  may  have 
an  historical  background. 

The  chief  inaccuracies  of  chapter  v.  of  which  a  brief  dis- 
cussion will  be  necessary  are  three  in  number : 

A.  The  last  king  of  Babylon  is  called  Belshazzar  (a  name 
occurring  only  in  Daniel  and  in  the  apocryphal  passage,  Baruch 
i.  11),  and  it  is  clearly  stated  that  he  was  the  son  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. 

B.  The  queen  mother  is  introduced  at  a  feast  on  the  eve  of 
the  fall  of  Babylon. 

C.  It  is  stated  (v.  31)  that  a  Median  king,  Darius,  received 
the  kingdom  after  the  fall  of  the  native  Babylonian  house. 

The  first  point  which  should  receive  attention  is  the  errone- 
ous statement  regarding  Belshazzar.  The  name  Belshazzar, 
previous  to  the  discovery  of  the  inscriptions  was  held  to  have 
been  invented  by  the  author  of  Daniel.  (So  Yon  Lengerke, 
2<'-t;  Hitzig,  75.  It  is  now  generally  admitted,  however, 
to  be  identical  with  the  Babylonian  form  BeUarugur  which 


26 

has  been  discovered  in  the  cuneiform  documents9  as  the  name 
of  the  eldest  son  of  Nabonidus,  the  last  king  of  Babylon.10 
Among  the  various  allusions  to  this  prince  in  the  cuneiform 
literature,  the  most  important  are  those  in  the  two  inscriptions 
of  Ur,  and  in  the  annals  of  Nabonidus,  the  chief  document 
relating  to  the  fall  of  Babylon.  As  the  reference  in  the  small 
inscription11  of  II  r  is  the  most  complete  and  consequently  the 
most  important,  I  append  a  translation  and  transcription.  In 
this  document  Nabonidus  speaks  as  follows : 
Balatu  sa  ume  ruquti  ^ife  ,f°r  long  days 

ana  siriqti  surqdm  give  as  a  gift  to  me 

u  sa  BelsaruQur  and  cause  to  dwell 

mdru  restu  in  the  heart  of  Belshazzar 

git  lihhiya  my  first  horn  son, 

puluxti  ilutika  rabiti  the  offspring  of  my  hody, 

libhus  suskinma  reverence  for   thy  great  God- 

d  irsd  head.     May  he  ne'er  incline 

xiteti  to  sin, 

lale  baldtu  lishi.  may  he  he  filled  with  the 

fulness  of  life. 

In  the  second  column  of  the  great  inscription  of  Ur,12  the 
king,  after  describing  the  restoration  of  the  temple  of  Eharra 

9  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  in  the  Athenceum.  March,  1854,  p.  341,  'A  letter 
from  Bagdad.'    See  also  Oppert,  ZDMGr,  viii.  598. 

10  The  name  occurs  in  the  inscriptions  as  that  of  probably  two  other 
persons  :   (a)  In  '  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,'  ii.  60,  I.  59,  where  the 
ruler  of  the  city  of  the  Kisesi,  one  of  the  tribes  conquered  by  Sargon,  is 
called  Belsarugur.     (b)  The  Belsarugur  son  of  Baldtu  mentioned  by 
Pinches  in  the  New  York  Independent,  1889,  Aug.  15,  is  probably  not, 
as  he  thinks,  the  son  of  Nabonidus  but  of  some  ordinary  person,  possi- 
bly of  some  one  named  after  the  king's  son  (?).     For  the  proper  name 
Baldtu,  see  Peiser  '  Babylonische  Vertrage,'  JVo.  ix.  I.  2.     (Ztschr.  fur 
Assyriologie,  vii.  66,  I.  2.) 

11  Text,  IR.  68,  col.  ii.  22-23,  and  Winckler's  '  Keilschrifttexte,'  p.  43. 
Translation,  Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  xix.  (1861),  195^.; 
repeated  also,  'Records  of  the  Past,'  v.  143^.,  Talbot :  Oppert,  'Expe- 
dition en  Mesopotamie,'  i.  262. 

12 '  Keilinschriftliche  Bibl.'  iii.  pt.  2,  p.  82.  BelsaniQur  mdru  r$stu 
.  .  .  git  (?}  libbiya  suriku  umesu,  a  irsd  xiteti,  '  Belshazzar  my  first 
born  .  .  .  the  offspring  of  my  body,  make  long  his  days,  may  he  not 
incline  to  sin.'  Peiser  transcribes  in  the  '  Keilinschriftliche  Biblio- 
thek '  .  .  .  lu  (?)  ux  bi  a  =  git  (?)  libbiya. 


27 

V 

and  offering  a  devout  petition  to  Samas,  the  sun-god,  that  the 
sacred  shrines  may  now  remain  uninjured,  closes  with  a  prayer 
for  his  own  well  being  and  with  a  supplication  for  Belsarugur 
his  first-born  in  almost  the  same  words  as  the  above.  Why 
this  especial  mention  of  the  king's  son  occurs  in  these  inscrip- 
tions of  Ur  is  doubtful.  It  may  be  conjectured  with  Tiele 
(<  Geschichte,'  463)  that  Bettarugur  was  governor  of  this 
province  in  Southern  Babylonia  and  had  Ur  as  his  capital,  or 
it  is  possible  that  Nabonidus  attached  some  special  religious 
importance  to  the  cult  of  the  moon-god  local  in  this  place. 
The  petition  here  that  the  king's  son  might  not  incline  to  sin 
may  perhaps  indicate  that  the  prince  had  in  some  way  offended 
the  prejudices  of  the  religious  classes,  who,  as  is  well  known, 
supervised  the  preparation  of  the  inscriptions.  From  the 
allusion  to  the  prince  in  the  annals13  of  Xabonidus  it  appears 
that  the  son  of  the  king  was  a  number  of  years  with  the  lords 
and  army  in  Akkad,  most  probably  in  the  capacity  of  com- 
mander in  chief,  while  his  father  was  residing  in  Terna  free 
from  the  cares  of  government.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  here 
that  in  the  annals  the  name  BelSarugwr  does  not  occur,  the 
allusion  being  merely  to  the  'son  of  the  king';  but  there  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  reference  is  to  the  first-born. 

In  addition  to  these  three  passages  from  the  historical  litera- 
ture, there  are  numbers  of  references  to  Belsarugur  in  the 
contract  tablets,  none  of  which,  however,  throw  any  further 
important  historical  light  011  his  character.* 

As  BelsaruQur  is  the  only  king's  son  mentioned  with  such 
prominence  in  the  Babylonian  inscriptions,14  and  as  it  is  espe- 

13  Annals,  col.  ii.  5,  during  the  seventh  year  of  Nabonidus,  col.  2.  10, 
during  the  10th  year.     See  also  col.  ii.  19  and  23. 

14  Compare,  however,  Nbpl.  col.  ii.  69,  *  Keilinschriftl.  Bibl.'  iii.  pt. 
2,  4,  mention  of  Nebuchadnezzar  ;  and  col.  iii.  6^.  of  Nabusulisir,  his 
brother.  In  later  documents  mention  is  made  of  Cambyses,  son  of  Cyrus, 
as  co-regent  and  king  of  Babylon  during  his  father's  lifetime.    (See  Tiele 
'Geschichte,'  483,  484.)     In  the  inscription  of  Antiochus  Soter,  VR.  66, 
'-25.  (•  Keilinschr.  Bibl.',  iii.  pt.  2,  138,  25),  mention  is  made  of  Seleucus, 
his  son  and  vice-king.     Delattre,  *  Solomon,  Asurbanipal  et  Baltasar,' 
1883,  p.  5,  compares  in  connection  with  Belsarugur  the  cases  of  Solo- 
mon and  Sardanapalus,  both  of  whom  exercised  the  vice-regal  dignity 
during  the  life  of  their  respective  fathers. 

*  See  additional  note  C. 


28 

cially  stated  that  the  lords  of  the  kingdom  and  army  were  with 
him  (probably  under  his  supervision)  in  Akkad,  it  seems  highly 
probable  that  he  was  a  very  important  personage  in  the  govern- 
ment, a  theory  which  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  his 
father,  Nabonidus/ was  more  of  an  archaeologist  than  a  ruler, 
and  far  more  interested  in  the  discovery  of  a  forgotten  site 
than  in  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom.  BeUarugwr,  therefore, 
as  some  critics  have  argued,15  may  have  really  been  co- 
regent  ;  but,  as  will  be  seen  subsequently,  the  author  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel  could  not,  as  they  thought,  have  had  this  idea 
in  mind  in  calling  him  king  of  Babylon. 

Comparing  the  Belsarugur  of  the  inscriptions  with  Belshaz- 
zar  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  the  following  important  differences 
are  apparent.  The  former  was  the  son  of  the  last  king  of  Baby- 
lon, but  never  reigned  except  possibly  as  co-regent,  while  the 
latter  is  distinctly  called  the  last  king  and  the  son  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar. There  can  be  little  doubt  that  both  of  these  statements 
were  made  by  the  author  of  Daniel  in  perfect  good  faith.  A 
number  of  commentators16  have  sought  to  prove  that  the  Belshaz- 
zar  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  was  not  necessarily  meant  by  the 
author  as  the  last  king  of  Babylon,  but  was  intended  for  Evil- 
merodach,  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar ;  a  view  advanced  in  support 
of  the  statement  in  verse  2,  that  Belshazzar  was  the  son  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar. Following  this  theory,  some  considered  Belshazzar 
merely  a  secondary  name.  (So  Ziindel  4  Daniel,'  26  ;  Niebuhr 
4  Geschichte,'  30,  etc.)  It  is  difficult  to  understand,  however, 

15Floigl,  'Cyrus  und  Herodot,'  24;  Andrea,  '  Beweis  des  Glauben?,' 
1888,  p.  249  ;  Smith  in  the  '  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  ;'  Meinhold,  '  Disser- 
tation,' 30,  n.  2,  etc. 

16  So  Marsham,  'Canon  chron.,'  596 /.;  Conring,  « Advers.  Chron.' 
c.  13  ;  Harenberg,  '  Dan.'  ii.  pp.  454 /.;  Hofmann,  '  Die  siebenzig  Jahre 
des  Jeremia  und  die  siebenzig  Jahrwochen  des  Daniel,'  p.  44  ;  Haver- 
nick,  'Neue  kritische  Untersuchungen,'  pp.  72 Jf.;  M.  v.  Niebuhr, 
'  Geschichte  Assurs  und  Babels,'  p.  42.;  Wolff  in  the  « Studien  und  Krit- 
iken,'  1858,  p.  684  note  a. ;  Ziindel,  '  Daniel,'  33  ;  Unger,  '  Kyaxares  und 
Astyages,'  pp.  28,  29.  Keil,  '  Dan.'  145,  although  knowing  of  the  dis- 
covery of  the  name  in  the  inscriptions  thought  that  the  Belsarugur, 
son  of  Nabonidus,  of  the  inscriptions  must  have  been  named  after  Bel- 
shazzar-Evilmerodach  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar !  Quatremere  in  his 
'  Annales  de  la  philosophic  chretienne,'  1838,  (Migne,  '  Die.  de  la  Bible,' 
ii.  p.  30,  note,  1845),  advanced  the  theory  in  support  of  Jeremiah  xxvii. 
7,  that  Nabonidus,  as  an  usurper,  associated  with  himself  Belshazzar, 


how  the  author  could  make,  Daniel  declare  to  the  Babylonian 
monarch  that  his  kingdom  was  about  to  pass  to  the  Medes  and 
Persians,  unless  the  prophecy  were  intended  for  the  last  king.  „ 
There  would  be  little  point  in  such  a  warning,  if  it  were  given 
a  generation  before  its  actual  fulfillment.  We  may  compare 
in  this  connection  the  indifference  of  Hezekiah  to  the  prophecy 
of  Isaiah  of  the  ultimate  deportation  to  Babylon  and  degra- 
dation there  of  all  the  Jewish  royal  family.  In  Isaiah  xxxix. 
8,  Hezekiah  said  :  "  Good  is  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  thou 
hast  spoken  .  .  .  for  there  shall  be  peace  and  truth  in  my 
days."  In  addition  to  this  it  is  evident  that  if  the  author  of 
Daniel  did  not  really  regard  his  Belshazzar  as  the  last  king  of 
Babylon,  but  as  Evilmerodach,  he  must  have  omitted  without 
mention  a  period  of  twenty  years  between  the  death  of  the  latter, 
and  the  foreign  supremacy ;  i.  e.  that  between  the  two  contigu- 
ous and  closely  related  statements  of  the  death  of  Belshazzar  and 
the  accession  of  Darius  the  Median,  the  reigns  of  several  kings 
were  passed  over  in  silence.  That  an  author  should  do  this 
knowingly  without  a  word  of  explanation,  as  some  writers  have 
sought  to  show,  seems  a  preposterous  supposition.17  It  appears 
perfectly  clear  that  the  Biblical  author  regarded  Belshazzar  as 
the  last  king  of  Babylon  before  the  coming  of  the  Medes  and 
Persians. 

son  of  Evilmerodach  and  grandson  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  order  to 
strengthen  his  position.  The  view  that  Belshazzar  and  Nabonidus 
were  identical  was  held  by  Josephus  (Antt.,  x.  11,  2),  where  he  states 
that  '  Baltasar '  was  called  '  Naboandelus '  by  the  Babylonians.  (Cf . 
also  'Contra  Apionem,'  i.  c.  20).  This  idea  was  followed  by  J.  D. 
Michaelis  '  Daniel,'  46 ;  Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,'  344 ;  Bleek,  Kirms,  Heng- 
stenberg,  Havernick,  'Daniel,'  p.  172;  Ewald  'Gesch.',  v.  85,  note; 
Herzfeld,  'Gesch.',  i.  154  ;  Browne,  '  Ordo  Saeclorurn,'  178. 

Sulpitius  Severus,  'Hist.',  ii.  6,  considered  Belshazzar  a  younger 
brother  of  Evilmerodach.  both  being  sons  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

Scaliger  (see  '  Isagogicorum  chronologiae  canonum  libri  tres.',  iii. 
p.  190,)  and  Calvisius,  who  were  followed  by  Ebrard,  '  Comm.  zur  Offen- 
barung  Johannis/  45,  and  Delitzsch  'Real  Encycl.',  iii.2  472,  identified 
him  with  Laborosoarchod  (Labasimarduk),  son  of  Neriglissar. 

17  Cf.  Zlmdel  and  Kranichfeld  '  Dan.',  25,  28,  who  believed  that  Bel- 
shazzar was  Evilmerodach,  and  explained  this  silence  regarding  the 
intervening  period  and  the  connection  of  two  statements  so  far  apart, 
by  supposing  that  they  were  brought  together  because  the  latter  was 
the  sequence  of  the  former  ! 


30 

As  remarked  above,  certain  critics  have  held  the  view 
that  because  Eelsarugur  may  have  been  co-regent  with  his 
father,  the  Biblical  writer,  knowing  this,  gave  his  Belshazzar 
the  title  of  king.  A  conclusive  answer  to  this  has  been  given 
by  Professor  Driver,  '  Introduction,'3  xxii.,  where  he  states 
that  there  are  certain  contract  tablets  published  by  Strassmaier 
and  bearing  date  continuously  from  the  reign  of  Nabonidus  to 
that  of  Cyrus,  which  show  that  neither  Belshazzar  nor  Darius 
the  Mede  (supposing  the  latter  to  have  been  historical)  could 
have  received  the  title  of  king  in  any  capacity  whatsoever. 
If  Belshazzar  really  had  been  co-regent,  however,  we  would 
not  expect  to  find  him  with  the  unqualified  title  'King  of 
Babylon '  without  any  further  explanation.  Cambyses,  the  son 
of  Cyrus,  was  undoubtedly  co-regent  and  bore  the  title  King  of 
Babylon  during  his  father's  life-time,  but  in  the  contract  which 
dates  from  his  first  year  it  is  expressly  stated  that  Cyrus  was 
still  '  king  of  the  lands.'  This  statement  should  be  contrasted 
with  Dan.  viii.  1,  where  reference  is  made  to  the  third  year 
of  '  Belshazzar,  King  of  Babylon,'  without  any  mention  of 
another  over-ruler.  Had  the  author  of  Daniel  really  believed 
that  Belshazzar  was  co-regent  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  he  would  in  some  way  have  qualified  the  title  '  King 
of  Babylon.' 

Furthermore  the  statement  that  Belshazzar  was  the  son  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  shows  conclusively  that  the  historical  knowl- 
edge of  the  author  of  Daniel  was  considerably  at  fault.  Certain 
commentators  have  endeavored  to  prove  that  this  statement  may 
be  in  accordance  with  the  facts,  L  e.  that  '  son '  here  is  to  be  trans- 
lated '  descendant '  or '  grandson.'  It  is  of  course  perfectly  true, 
as  Dr.  Pusey  has  remarked,  that  DN  and  p  (Aramaic  ~O)  are 
used,  not  only  of  the  actual  father  and  son,  but  also  of  the  grand- 
father or  grandson,  and  ancestor  or  descendant  in  general.18 
The  way,  however,  in  which  Nebuchadnezzar  is  referred  to 
in  the  fifth  chapter  shows  plainly  that  the  author  could  have 
had  no  knowledge  of  the  intervening  kings,  but  considered 

18  Compare  Pusey,  'Daniel,'  p.  346.  There  is  no  distinctive  word 
either  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaean  for  grandfather  or  grandson.  In  later 
Hebrew,  Buxtorf  gives  ?f  ,  'grandfather,' fern. 


31 

Nebuchadnezzar  as  the  actual  father  of  Belshazzar.  In  the 
ft- ^.  place,  the  narrative  of  chapter  v.  follows  directly  on  the 
chapters  concerning  Nebuchadnezzar  and  begins  with  the  un- 
qualified assertion  that  Belshazzar  was  the  son  of  that  monarch ; 
and  secondly,  the  remark  of  Belshazzar  in  v.  13,  'so  tliou  art 
Daniel  ....  whom  the  king  my  father  brought  from  Judaea,' 
would  be  ambiguous  if  the  king  were  referring  to  his  grand- 
father or  an  ancestor.  In  this  case  we  would  expect  the  repe- 
tition of  the  name  Nebuchadnezzar  to  indicate  to  which  'father' 
the  king  was  alluding.  But  even  if  the  words  'father'  and 
'  son '  of  the  fifth  chapter  really  were  used  for  '  grandson  '  and 
4  grandfather,'  there  is  no  proof  that  Belsaruqur  was  in  any  way 
related  to  Nebuchadnezzar.19  Nabonidus,  his  father,  was  the  son 
of  a  nobleman,  Nabiibalatsuiqbi  (see  '  Keilinschr.  Bibl.'  iii.  pt. 
2.  96,  I.  6),  and  was  probably  a  leader  in  the  conspiracy  against 
his  predecessor,  Ldbasi-^Larduk.  As  far  as  is  known,  he  was 
not  related  to  any  of  the  preceding  kings.  Had  Nabonidus 
been  descended  from  Nebuchadnezzar  he  could  hardly  have 
failed  to  boast  of  such  a  connection  with  the  greatest  Babylo- 
nian monarch,  yet  in  none  of  his  inscriptions  does  he  trace  his 
descent  beyond  his  father.  Some  scholars  have  tried  to  ob- 
viate the  difficulty  by  supposing  that  Nabonidus,  in  order  to 
strengthen  his  dynasty,  married  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
and  that  in  this  way  BeUarugur  was  the  great  king's  grandson, 
a  theory  which  in  the  absence  of  records  cannot  possibly  be 
proved.'0 

19  Auberlen,  •  Daniel, 'p.  16.  thought  that  Belshazzar  was  called  son  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  just  as  Omri  was  considered  by  the  Assyrians  as 
father  of  the  house  of  Israel.  '  Father,'  however,  cannot  be  used  of 
the  unrelated  predecessors,  as  Pusey  (Daniel,  347)  sought  to  show. 
Wherever  it  is  used  in  this  connection,  as  in  the  above  cited  case,  it  is 
an  error  as  to  the  real  relationship.  The  passage  in  Sargon  which 
Pusey  cites  in  support  of  his  view,  believing  that  Sargon  was  no  rela- 
tion to  the  preceding  kings,  is  very  doubtful,  and  probably  does  not 
contain  the  words  sarru  abiya,  'the  king,  my  father.'  Cf.  Winckler's 
k  Sargon,'  ii.,  xiii.,  but  also  Tiele  '  Gesch.',  254,  255,  rem.  2. 

-"Note  that  Bertholdt,  'Daniel'  344,  Bleek,  Kirms,  Havernick, 
'Untersuch/  72,  Hitzig,  'Dan.',  73,  Schrader  '  Jahrbuch  f iir  Prot.  The- 
ologie,'  vii.  629,  are  all  agreed  that  the  author  considered  Belshazzar 
the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 


32 

The  similarity  of  name  and  the  facts,  first,  that  the  historical 
Belsarucur  of  the  inscriptions  was  the  son  of  the  last  king  of 
Babylon,  while  the  Belshazzar  of  Daniel  is  represented  as  being 
himself  the  last  king,  and,  secondly,  that  it  has  been  established 
quite  lately,  as  will  be  seen  below,  that  Belsamigur,  son  of  Na- 
bonidus,  probably  met  his  death  at  the  time  of  the  capture  of 
Babylon,  in  partial  agreement  with  the  Biblical  account  con- 
cerning Belshazzar,  prove  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the 
son  of  Nabonidus  is  the  original  of  the  king  in  the  Biblical 
account.21 

The  first  historical  inaccuracy  of  the  fifth  chapter  is,  there- 
fore, the  erroneous  statement  concerning  the  name  and  ances- 
try of  the  last  king  of  Babylon.  It  should  be  remembered 
that  the  value  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  which  nowhere  pretends 
to  be  an  accurate  account,  but  is  rather  a  political  pamphlet 
written  with  a  certain  object  in  view,  is  by  no  means  impaired 
by  this  inexact  treatment  of  history.  The  force  of  the  story 
would  have  been  materially  weakened  had  the  author  known 
and  made  use  of  the  names  of  the  kings  intervening  between 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  last  king.  The  whole  point  of  the 
fifth  chapter,  as  brought  out  in  the  mysterious  sentence,  is  a 
comparison  between  the  great  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  real  founder 
of  the  Babylonian  monarchy ;  the  insignificant  last  king  who 
had  allowed  the  reins  of  government  to  slip  from  his  feeble 
hands ;  and  the  coming  stranger  people  who  should  divide 
between  them  the  empire  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

The  second  inacuracy  of  the  author  in  the  fifth  chapter  of 
Daniel  which  should  be  noticed  at  this  point,  is  his  introduc- 
tion of  the  queen-mother,  i.  e.  the  mother  of  Nabonidus,  into 
the  story.  According  to  verse  10  the  queen  entered  the  hall 
and  suggested  that  the  Jewish  prophet  Daniel  be  called  to 

21Talbot,  '  Records  of  the  Past,'  v.  143,  doubts  the  identity  of  the  Bib- 
lical Belshazzar  with  the  Belsarucur  of  the  inscriptions,  supposing  that 
the  account  in  Daniel  is  told  of  some  other  person  with  this  name, 
which  he  asserts  to  be  a  common  one.  As  the  name  BelSarugur  occurs 
only  twice  in  the  published  inscriptions  of  another  than  the  son  of 
Nabonidus  (see  above  note  10  to  this  chapter),  until  the  hypothetical 
'  other  person'  be  discovered  it  is  certainly  consistent  with  good  judg- 
ment in  view  of  the  reasons  just  given  to  regard  Belsarucur  son  of 
Nabonidus  and  the  Belshazzar  of  Daniel  as  identical. 


33 

interpret  the  mysterious  writing.  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  author  was  referring  to  the  queen-dowager,  the  mother 
of  the  last  king  of  Babylon.  The  mother  of  Nabonidus,  how- 
ever, died  in  the  ninth  year  of  his  reign  (see  Annals,  col.  ii.  13), 
just  eight  years  before  the  occupation  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus,  so 
that  her  presence  at  a  feast  held  towards  the  close  of  the  reign 
of  Nabonidus  would  be  clearly  impossible.  It  might  be  argued 
that  the  reference  in  ch.  v.  may  be  to  the  wife  of  Nabonidus, 
the  mother  of  Belsarugur,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  little 
doubt  that  the  author  of  Daniel  regarded  Belshazzar  (Belsaru- 
<•>//•}  as  actually  king  and  knew  nothing  of  Nabonidus ;  so  it 
seems  only  possible  to  assert  that  he  considered  the  queen 
alluded  to  in  this  verse  as  the  mother  of  the  reigning  monarch. 

The  third  and  last  historical  inaccuracy  of  the  fifth  chapter 
of  Daniel  is  the  assertion  in  verse  31  that  a  Median  King 
Darius  u  received  the  kingdom  "  after  the  end  of  the  native 
Babylonian  dynasty.  It  is  well  known  that  Babylon  was  cap- 
tured by  Cyrus  the  Persian,  who,  some  time  previously,  had 
obtained  possession  of  Media  and  its  King  Astyages.  It  is  evi- 
dent too,  from  Daniel  i.  21 ;  x.  1,  that  the  Biblical  writer  was 
perfectly  aware  of  the  existence  of  Cyrus.  From  his  introduc- 
tion of  a  Median  Darius  directly  after  the  fall  of  Belshazzar ;  it 
must  be  concluded  that  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel 
believed  in  the  existence  of  a  Median  king  between  the  Baby- 
lonian and  Persian  dynasties. 

The  fact  that  in  no  other  scriptural  passage22  is  mention 
made  of  any  Median  ruler  between  the  last  king  of  Babylon 
and  Cyrus,  and  the  absolute  silence  of  the  most  authoritative 
ancient  authors  regarding  such  a  king,  have  cast  serious  doubt 
on  the  accuracy  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  in  this  particular. 
Various  attempts  have  been  made,  however,  to  vindicate  the 
historical  character  of  this  Darius  the  Median.23  The  opinion 

--  See  Isaiah,  xliv.  ff.  Compare  also  the  legend  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon, 
verse  1,  and  the  Greek  translations  (LXX  and  Theodotion)  of  Dan.  xi.  1, 
where  the  name  Cyrus  is  substituted  for  that  of  Darius. 

-3Note  in  this  connection  Josephus,  Antt.  x.  11,  4,  followed  by 
Jerome  on  Daniel  v.  1  :  vi.  1,  (Opp.  ed.  Vallarsi,  torn.  v.  651,  657).  Jose- 
phus stated  that  Babylon  was  captured  by  Darius,  who  was  the  son  of 
Astyages  and  had  another  name  among  the  Greeks.  The  following 
5 


34 

1ms  been  very  generally  advanced  that  lie  was  identical  with 
Cyaxares,  son  of  Astyages,  mentioned  in  Xenophon's  Cyro- 
paedia,24  and  in  support  of  this  theory  reference  has  been  made 
to  the  lines  of  Jischylus,  Persce,  762-765.  (So  Hitzig,  77 ; 
Keil,  165.) 

MTJ^O?  yap  j]V  o  Trpwro?  rjrye/jiwv  arparov 
"AXXo?  8'  e/ceivov  irals  rdS'  ep<yov  rjvvo-e ' 
4>/oez>e?  yap  avrov  OVJJLOV  oia/coo-rpdcfrovv. 
Tptro?  £'  a?r'  avrov  KO^oo?,  evSai/jicov  avijp,  K.  r.  \. 

writers  attempted  to  prove  the  historical  character  of  Darius  the  Mede  ; 
Delitzsch,  '  Real  Encyclopadie,'  iii.  ed.  1,  article  '  Daniel ;'  Prideaux, 
'History  of  the  Jews,'  i.  98,  154,  172,  etc.;  Havernick,  'Daniel,'  205; 
Hengstenberg,  '  Daniel,'  48,  327  ;  Kranichfeld,  '  Daniel,'  44 ;  Lengerke, 
'Dan.',  232;  Lenormant,  'Magie,'  535;  J.  D.  Michaelis,  'Dan.',  52; 
Vaihinger,  '  Real-Encycl.',  s.  v.  Darius;  Venema,  '  Historia  Ecclesias- 
tica,'  ii.  pp.  309^.;  Zimdel,  'Dan.',  37.  Compare  also  Jahn  'Biblical 
Archaeology,'  transl.  Upham,  ed.  5,  p.  289;  Browne,  'Ordo  Sseclorum,' 
p.  175  ;  Schulz'  '  Cyrus  der  Grosse,'  Stud,  und  Krit.  1853,  p.  685  ;  Zock- 
ler,  '  Daniel,'  34.  With  regard  to  other  less  important  opinions  as  to 
Darius  the  Median,  some  authorities  considered  him  identical  with 
Astyages.  Among  the  holders  of  this  opinion  is  Syncellus,  '  Chronogr,' 
p.  232,  where  he  said  NaJow^dof  6  re/tewaZof  {3aat?iEV(;  M^dwf,  'Affrvdy^f  Trap' 
avTols  %ey6fj,evo(;,  6  avro^  6e  nal  AapeZof  'Aaaovqpov.  Cf.  also  Marsham, 
Niebuhr,  etc.,  and  more  lately  Unger,  '  Kyaxares  und  Astyages,'  pp. 
26-28.  Others  sought  to  show  that  Darius  the  Median  was  a  near 
relative  of  Astyages.  Compare  Quatremere,  '  Memoires  sur  Darius  le 
Mede  et  Baltasar,'  380-381,  who  considered  him  Astyages'  nephew. 
Ibn  Ezra  (Hitzig,  '  Daniel,'  76),  (see  IE  on  Dan.  vi.  1)  thought  that  he 
was  the  father-in-law  of  Cyrus.  Klein,  Schulz,  op.  cit.,  684,  and 
Ziindel  regarded  him  as  a  younger  brother  of  Astyages.  Ebrard 
Scheuchzer,  Scaliger,  in  Appendix  of  his  '  De  emend,  temporum '  and 
in  '  Isagogicorum  chronologic  canonum  libri  tres.'  iii.  pp.  291  and  315, 
Petavius,  and  Buddeus,  (see  Zockler,  34)  thought  him  identical  with 
Nabonidus.  Conring,  '  Advers.  Chron.',  c.  13,  Bouhier  'Dissertation 
sur  Herodote,'  29,  Harenberg,  ii.  pp.  434jf.,  regarded  him  as  identical 
with  Neriglissar.  Hengstenberg,  •  Daniel,'  328,  Jdentified  him  with 
Bahman,  who  according  to  Persian  tradition  (Mirchond)  dethroned 
Belshazzar  and  appointed  Cyrus  ;  but  cf.  v.  Lengerke,  •  Daniel,'  224/f. 
etc.,  etc. 

24  Cf.  Xen.  Cyrop.,  i.  5,  2.  Hpol6vrog  6e  roi>  %povov  6  ulv  'AaTvdyqs  kv  role; 
Mqdoif  a.TTO'&vr/GK.ei,  6  6e  Kvagdpw  6  TOV  'Aorvd-yovc;  Tralg,  rfjq  6e  Kvpov  priTpbg 
dde^of,  rrjv  ftaatheiav  ea%£  rtiv  M.7j6uv. 

For  the  opinion  that  Darius  the  Mede  was  identical  with  Cyaxares, 
see,  for  example,  Havernick,  'Dan.',  206  ;  Keil,  'Dan.',  165  ;  Kranich- 
feld, 'Dan.',  44;  Lengerke,  'Dan/,  220;  Andrea,  '  Beweis  d.  Glaubens,' 
xxv.  57,  Meinhold  'Dissertation,'  33/.,  and  others  mentioned  above. 


35 

The  TrpftjTO?  rjryefjiwv  crrpaTov  was  supposed  to  refer  to 
Astyages,  while  the  "  son "  of  the  following  line  was  under- 
stood to  be  the  Cyaxares  mentioned  in  the  Cyropaedia.  As  a 
further  proof  of  identity,  the  age  of  the  Darius  of  Daniel, 
sixty -two  years,  has  been  cited  as  a  point  of  agreement  with  the 
account  that  Cyaxares,  having  no  hope  of  a  male  heir,  being 
too  old,  gave  Cyrus  his  daughter  and  made  him  his  successor." 
It  may  be  well  in  this  connection  to  compare  the  data  of  Xen- 
ophon  regarding  the  last  Median  kings  with  those  of  Herodo- 
tus on  the  same  subject.  It  should  be  noticed,  first,  that 
Herodotus  ends  the  Median  dynasty  with  Astyages,  while 
Xenophon  adds  a  son,  Cyaxares.  Secondly,  according  to  Her- 
odotus Cyrus  was  only  related  to  the  Median  house  by  being 
the  son  of  Astyages'  daughter.  Xenophon  adds  to  this  that 
Cyrus  married  the  daughter  of  Cyaxares  (his  first  cousin),  and 
inherited  with  her  the  Median  empire.  Thirdly,  according  to 
the  account  of  Herodotus,  Cyrus  took  part  in  the  rebellion 
instigated  by  Harpagus  and  conquered  his  grandfather  Astya- 
ges, capturing  Media.  Herodotus'  account  of  the  conquest  of 
Babylon  contains  no  reference  to  any  Median  prince.  Xeno- 
phon relates,  however,  that  Cyrus,  after  quarreling  with  Cyax- 
ares, became  reconciled  to  him  and  gave  him  royal  honors  after 
the  Babylonian  campaign.  Herodotus,  as  will  be  seen  from 
the  above,  had  no  knowledge  of  any  Median  king  between 
Astyages  and  Cyrus,  nor  of  any  special  Median  occupation  of 
Babylon,  and  in  this  respect  his  account  is  substantiated  by  the 
cuneiform  records.  It  should  be  noticed  that  neither  Berossus 
nor  any  other  ancient  author  knows  of  a  Median  rule  after  the 
fall  of  Babylon.26  In  the  annals  of  Nabonidus  and  the  Cyrus 
Cylinder,  the  two  cuneiform  documents  relating  to  the  fall  of 

• 

25  See  Cyrop.,  viii.  5,  19  andc/.  Havernick,  '  Dan.',  206.   Some  commen- 
tators who  identified  Xenophon's  Cyaxares  with  the  Median  Darius, 
explained    the    silence    of    Herodotus    and    other    writers    regarding 
Cyaxares  by  supposing  that  the  latter  reigned  too  short  a  time  to  have 
given  his  name  to  history ;  but  this  does  not  of  course  explain  the 
silence    of    Xenophon  himself    in  the  Anabasis    about  the  fabulous 
Cyaxares. 

26  jror  the  account  of  Berossus  see  below,  ch.  3,  p.  46.     Compare  in  this 
connection  Ktesias,  Pers.,  ii.  5  :  Diodorus  Siculus,  ii.  24,  etc. 


36 

Babylon,  no  mention  whatever  occurs  of  any  ruler  of  Media 
between  Astyages  and  Cyrus  (cf.  Annals  ii.  1-4  and  note),  nor 
of  any  king  of  Babylon  intervening  between  Nabonidus  and 
Cyrus.  On  the  contrary  it  is  stated  that  Cyrus  became  master 
of  Media  by  conquering  Astyages,  and  that  the  troops  of  the 
King  of  Persia,  capturing  Babylon,  took  Nabonidus  prisoner. 
Cyrus  himself  entered  the  city  nine  months  later. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  is  difficult  to  see  where  an  interme- 
diate reign  can  be  inserted,  either  in  Media,  directly  after 
Astyages,  or  in  Babylonia  after  Nabonidus.  It  should  be  men- 
tioned, moreover,  that  the  Cyaxares  of  the  Cyropaedia  is  not 
recorded  to  have  ruled  in  Babylon,  but  merely  to  have  received 
royal  quarters  in  that  city.  (Cyrop.,  viii.  5, 17.)  An  identifica- 
tion between  Darius  the  Median  and  the  Cyaxares,  son  of  Asty- 
ages, of  Xenophon's  romance,  is,  therefore,  open  to  the  serious 
objection  that  the  existence  of  this  latter  person,  contrary  to 
all  other  accounts,  is  extremely  doubtful.  It  should  be  remem- 
bered that  the  narrative  of  the  Cyropaedia  resembles  the  Book 
of  Daniel  in  that  it  was  not  written  for  an  historical  but  for  a 
moral  purpose.  It  is  enough  to  quote  Cicero,  who  remarked 
(Ad  Quintum  fratrem,  Lib.  i.  1,  8),  "  Cyrus  ille  a  Xenophonte 
non  ad  historiae  fidem  scriptus  est,  sed  ad  effigiem  justi  imperil." 
It  is  perhaps  a  little  harsh  to  characterize  Xenophon's  work, 
with  Niebuhr  as  an  'elenden  und  lappischen  Roman.'  (' Yor- 
trage  liber  alte  Geschichte,'  i.  116.)  With  respect  to  the  peace- 
ful succession  of  Cyrus  to  the  Median  Empire,  Xenophon,  in 
his  more  historical  work,  the  Anabasis,  iii.  4-,  expressly  stated 
that  the  Medes  succumbed  to  the  victorious  arms  of  Cyrus. 
The  Cyropaedia,  therefore,  representing  the  peaceful  passage  of 
the  empire  of  the  East  from  Astyages  to  Cyaxares  his  son,  and 
from  the  latter  to  Cyrus,  can  only  be  giving  some  fanciful  em- 
bellishment.27 

27  Some  commentators  in  a  mistaken  effort  to  confirm  the  Biblical 
record  have  deliberately  confounded  the  names  of  Darius,  Cyaxares, 
and  Xerxes.  Thus,  Havernick,  '  Dan.',  210 ;  '  Untersuchungen,'  78, 
and  Zockler,  'Daniel,'  34,  thought  that  Astyages  was  identical  with 
Ahasuerus  ;  and  Keil, '  Dan.',  167,  thought  that  Darius  and  Cyaxares  were 
related  in  meaning.  Hengstenberg,  '  Daniel,'  51,  and  Niebuhr,  '  Kleine 
Schrif  ten,'  207,  believed  in  the  identity  of  the  names  Cyaxares,  Astyages, 


37 

It  is  probable  that  this  Cyaxares  of  the  Cyropaedia  arose  from 
a  confusion  of  facts.  The  father  of  Astyages  was  the  famous 
Cyaxares,  and  Xenophon,  by  a  confusion  of  history,  must  have 
believed,  when  writing  his  romance,  that  Astyages  preceded 
Cyaxares,  and  that  the  latter  was  the  last  king  of  his  dynasty 
(compare  Delattre,  'Medes,'^.  170).  Even  had  this  fabulous 
second  Cyaxares  existed,  however,  an  identification  between  him 
and  Darius  the  Median,  would  be  impossible,  owing  to  the  differ- 
ence of  the  names  of  their  respective  fathers.  The  latter  is 
called  in  chapter  ix.  1,  the  son  of  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes)  a  name 
which  could  never  be  considered  the  same  as  Astyages. 

The  attempt  to  identify  the  Darius  of  Daniel  with  the  King 
Darius  mentioned  in  the  Armenian  Chronicle  of  Eusebius28  can 
hardly  be  regarded  as  satisfactory.  According  to  this  passage 
it  is  stated  that  after  Cyrus  gave  the  last  king  of  Babylon  the 

province  of  Carniania,  Darius  drove  out  some  one  from  that 
region ;  probably  Nabonidus. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  this  Darius  is  no  other  than 
Darius  llystaspis.  (Even  Pusey,  '  Daniel,'  159,  had  to  admit 
that  tins  was  possible;  compare  also  Kranichfeld,  'Daniel,'  45, 
v.  Lengerke, '  Daniel,'  228.)  It  is  possible  that  Nabonidus,  the 
last  king  of  Babylon,  whom  Cyrus  dethroned  in  538  B.  C.,  and 
according  to  the  record  of  Berossus  (see  below,  note  3  to  chapter 
third)  sent  to  Carmania,  may  have  remained  in  that  province 
until  the  time  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  The  Persian  king,  perhaps 
enraged  by  some  attempt  of  Kabonidus  to  rebel,  may  have 
expelled  him  from  his  province  as  the  account  of  Megasthenes 
seems  to  state.  The  idea  can  hardly  be  entertained  that  there 
is  an  allusion  here  to  an  earlier  Darius. 


and  Ahasuerus.  In  his  'Gesch.  Assurs  und  Babels,'  p.  45,  Niebuhr 
confused  the  name  Astyages,  which  he  considered  as  a  title  of  honor, 
with  Cyaxares  and  Darius.  Von  Lengerke,  'Daniel,'  237,  thought  that 
Cyaxares  and  Ahasuerus  were  identical.  Ziindel,  '  Daniel,'  36, 
Kranichfeld,  •  Dan.',  46,  Pusey,  '  Dan.',  159,  and  Andrea,  58,  saw  no 
difficulty  in  the  difference  in  name  !  Unger,  *  Kyaxares  and  Astyages,' 
29,  thought  like  Niebuhr  that  Darius  was  a  throne  name,  a  sort  of 
title,  etc. 

2sSee  Armenian  Chronicle,   Ed.  Schoene,   i.  41  (Latin  translation), 
quoting  from  the  account  of  Abydenus  from  Megasthenes. 


38 

The  argument  based  on  the  authority  of  Suidas  and  Harpo- 
cration,29 that  the  coin  darik,  was  called,  not  after  Darius 
Hystaspis,  as  many  have  supposed,  but  after  an  older  monarch 
of  this  name,  probably  the  Median  Darius  of  Daniel,30  is  also 
in  view  of  modern  researches  extremely  doubtful. 

The  name  of  the  coin,  Sapeiicos  (Hebrew  fiDTlN)  has  been 
derived  from  the  name  Darius,31  but  it  is  extremely  probable 
that  there  is  no  connection  linguistically  between  the  two. 
Putting  aside  all  other  difficulties,  the  form  Sapeifcds,  if  consid- 
ered an  adjectival  development  from  Aa/3e£o9,  has  no  analogy. 
As  Georg  Hoffmann  has  pointed  out,  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyr., 
ii.  53,  forms  like  /cepa/^et/co'?,  Eu/3oet«:o?  come  from  /ce/oayLteu?, 
Eu/3oeu?,  etc.,  and  not  from  an  original  -e£o?.  The  K  in 
Sapei/cds  he  believes,  therefore,  is  not  of  Greek  origin.3'2  The 
derivation,  however,  which  Hoffmann  suggests  (op.  cit.<p.  56) 
from  '  Dar-ik  '  =  ^3  ,  from  Dar,  gate ;  i.  e.  the  royal  gate,  has 
been  retracted,  Phoenician  Inscriptions,  Gottingen,  1889, p.  8. 
(Note  that  Hitzig,  <  Daniel,' j?.  77,  derived  the  name  from  the 
Sanscrit  darcana,  darcamana — mirror,  appearance  and  Len- 
gerke,  '  Dan.',  229,  from  ^L^  or  L|o  — '  lord,  king,'  i.  e.  the 
royal  coin  par  excellence^] 

Bertin,  Proceedings  Society  for  Biblical  Archaeology,  Feb.  5, 
1884,  j?.  87,  mentioned  that  a  contract  of  the  twelfth  year  of 
Nabonidus  contains  the  word  dariku  which  he  believed 
might  be  the  original  of  the  name  of  the  coin.  This  dariku, 

29  Suidas  said,  Aapeinoi  .  .  .  OVK.  and  ^.apeiov  rov  Zepgov  Trarpdf,  a/lA'  a<j>' 
erepov  nvbg  Tra^aiorspov  /JaoY/lt'Wf  uvo/uaG'&Tjaav.  See  Hultsch,  '  Metro- 
logicorum  scriptorum  reliquiae,'  vol.  i.  p.  335,  21 JT.  Compare  also 
Harpocration,  sub.  v.,  Schol.  ad  Aristoph.,  Iff.,  EccL,  602,  who  remarked 
'eK^rj&'ijoav  6e  AapstKoi  oii^i  &£  ol  7r%.eiov(;  vo/ui£ovcnv,  airo  Aapeiov  rov  £ep£;ov  Trarpof, 
aW  op  erepov  .  .  .  paaiMos.  See  Hultsch,  '  Metrol.'  vol.  1,  p.  311,  1.  2-5  : 
pp.  315,  1.  17 ;  p.  348,  1.  20. 

30 See  Cook's  'Bible  Commentary,'  vi.,  314  Andrea,  op.  cit.,  49. 
Hengstenberg,  '  Daniel,'  51,  Havernick,  '  Untersuchungen,'  78,  etc.,  etc. 

31  See  above  note  29oii  Harpocration,  and  compare  Gesenius,  '  Thesau- 
rus,' 353,  de  Lagarde,  '  Abhandlungen,'  242,  quoted  by  Hoffmann,  ZA. 
ii.  50,  who  regarded  Aap«/cof  like  Aap^/a/f  as  a  by-form  of  Darius. 

32  For  the  extreme  improbability  of  the  derivation  of  this  word  from 
the  name  Darius,  see  his  entire  article,  Ztschr.  fur  Assyr.,  ii.  49-56.    As 
early  as  Havernick,  '  Unters.',  78,  n.  3,  1838,  the  difficulty  of  such  a  sup- 
position was  felt. 


39 

li»>wt.'\vr.  Mviiis  to  l)e  the  name  of  some  agricultural  product. 
(So  Tallqvist,  '  Sprache  der  Contracte  Nabunaids,'  p.  66.  For 
the  word  cf.  Xbk.  -132.  7,  Strassmaier,  '  Babylonische  Texte'; 
'////•//•'/.  Xbk.  347.  1M;  /V/v'/-'/-^>71 — also  '  Alphabetisches 
Worterverzeichniss,'  No.  1919.)  It  appears  hardly  possible, 
therefore,  to  connect  it  with  the  later  Sap&icfc.  While  the 
true  derivation  of  the  name  of  the  coin  has  probably  not  yet 
been  discovered,  its  connection  with  the  name  Darius  appears 
no  longer  possible.  The  assertions  of  Suidas  and  Harpocration, 
therefore,  that  the  coin  was  not  named  from  Darius  Hystaspis, 
but  from  some  older  monarch  must  thus  fall  to  the  ground, 
and  with  it  the  hope  of  an  identification  of  Darius  the  Median 
with  an  older  king  of  this  name. 

If  there  is  no  room  in  history  for  this  Median  king  of  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  and  it  appears  consequently  that  such  a  ruler 
could  not  have  existed,  but  that  Media  passed  from  Astyages, 
and  Babylon  from  Xabonidus,  to  Cyrus,  how  is  it  possible  to 
account  for  this  interpolation  of  a  Median  rule  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel  { 

The  author  evidently  believed  that  Babylonia  passed  into 
Median  hands  before  it  reached  Cyrus.  The  theory  is  not 
tenable  that  Darius  the  Median  was  a  Median  prince  to  whom 
Cyrus  had  given  Babylon  as  a  reward  for  his  services.  (So  Vig- 
uolles.  '  Oeuvres,'  ii.  510  sq.  followed  by  Lenormant,  '  Manual 
of  the  Ancient  History  of  the  East,'  p.  490).  Nor  can  we 
suppose  him  to  have  been  a  sort  of  satrap  or  vice-king.  (So 
Andrea.  oj>.  cit.  55  ;  Pusey, '  Daniel,'  160.)  The  author  of  Daniel 
represents  Darius  with  full  kingly  powers.  Darius  divides  the 
empire  into  one  hundred  and  twenty  satrapies  (ch.  vi.  1) ;  he 
signs  a  royal  decree  making  it  unalterable  law  (ch.  vi.  7,  8); 
he  issues  a  proclamation  to  all  peoples,  nations  and  languages 
that  dwell  in  the  earth  (ch.  vi.  25) ;  and  the  author  dates  accord- 
ing to  his  reign  and  refers  nowhere  to  any  overlord  (ch.  ix.  1). 

The  question  may  be  divided  into  two  heads :  First ,  Why 
does  the  author  of  Daniel  believe  that  the  Medes  held  Baby- 
lon before  the  Persians  (  Second,  Why  does  he  call  his 
Median  king  by  the  familiar  name  of  Darius  ? 

A.  In  order  to  answer  the  first  question  it  seems  necessary 
to  give  a  very  brief  outline  of  the  Median  history.  Accord- 


40 

ing  to  the  record  of  Herodotus  the  Median  kingdom  was 
founded  by  Deiokes.  If  the  chronology  of  the  Greek  historian 
is  at  all  correct,  Deiokes  must  have  founded  his  kingdom,  as 
Tiele  has  pointed  out  ('  Geschichte,'^.  408),  during  the  reign  of 
Sennacherib  in  ^Assyria  (705-681  B.  C.).  (For  an  historical 
examination  of  the  foundation  of  Media  see  Delattre,  ;  Medes,' 
p.Wff.) 

This  whole  question,  however,  is  very  uncertain  and  has  little 
bearing  011  what  follows.  The  son  of  Deiokes  was  Phraortes, 
who  is  really  the^first  historical  king  of  Media.  (According  to 
Herodotus  he  must  have  reigned  from  646  until  625  B.  C.) 
Following  the  account  of  Herodotus,  not  content  with  ruling 
over  the  Medes  alone,  Phraortes  marched  against  and  subju- 
gated the  Persians.  Then,  at  the  head  of  the  combined  forces 
of  Persians  and  Medes,  he  set  out  to  conquer  Asia,  passing 
from  one  people  to  the  other.  Finally  he  attacked  the  Assy- 
rians, at  that  time  isolated  by  the  defection  of  their  allies,  and 
not^only  suffered  defeat  but  was  killed  during  the  expedition, 
having  ruled  twenty-two  years.  His  reign  coincides  with  the 
last  twenty-two  years  of  that  of  Asurbanipal.  As  Tiele  remarks 
(k  Geschichte,'  408),  it  is  certainly  striking  that  this  latter 
king  never  followed  the  example  of  his  predecessors  in  attack- 
ing Media.  The  probable  reason  was  that  the  power  of 
Phraortes  was  too  great  to  admit  of  such  an  attempt.  If  we 
accept  the  chronology  of  Herodotus,  the  year  of  Phraortes' 
attack  on  Nineveh,  625  B.  C.,  coincides  with  the  time  of  the 
death  of  Asurbanipal  and  the  defection  of  Babylon  from  the 
Assyrian  rule.  In  spite  of  her  difficult  position,  however, 
Assyria  seemed  still  to  have  possessed  sufficient  power  to  cast 
off  the  Medes  for  a  time.  Phraortes  was  succeeded  by  his  son 
Cyaxares,  who  completed  his  father's  work  ;  and  under  this  mon- 
arch the  Median  power  reached  the  summit  of  its  greatness. 
According  to  the  account  of  Herodotus  (i.  73,  74),  Cyaxares  care- 
fully reorganizing  the  Median  army  ;  dividing  the  spearmen, 
archers,  and  cavalry  into  separate  troops,  marched  with  his 
entire^force  against  Nineveh,  intending,  in  vengeance  for  the 
defeat  and  death  of  his  father,  completely  to  destroy  the 
city.  His  first  siege,  owing  to  the  Scythian  irruption  into  his 
kingdom,  he  was  forced  to  raise,  but  finally,  shaking  off  the 


41 

barbarians,  he  besieged  Nineveh  anew  and  at  length  made  an 
end  of  the  Assyrian  power. 

According  to  the  account  of  Berossus,  which  may  be  trust- 
worthy, the  Babylonian  king,  whose  son  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
married  to  the  daughter  of  the  Median  chief,  helped  the  Medes 
in  this  siege.  (See  Tiele,  <  Gesch.',  410.)  It  should  be  noticed 
here  that  Berossus  and  the  authors  dependent  011  him  did  not 
know  of  Oyaxares,  but  believed  that  Nineveh  was  conquered 
by  Astyages.  According  to  the  account  of  Abydenus,  how- 
ever, the  king  of  Babylon  Busalossor  (Nabopolassar),  having 
married  his  son  Nabukodrossoros  to  the  daughter  of  the  Median 
chief  A#(1<ihak,  proceeded  alone  against  Nineveh.39 

About  the  details  of  the  fall  of  Nineveh  there  is  no  record 
either  in  Herodotus  or  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions,  the  last 
Assyrian  kings  of  whom  we  have  any  document  being  Asur- 
<t'i1-'il<'iii'<-nk'tiini  and  Sin-sar-iskun.  (See  Bezold  '  Literatur,' 
122).  Herodotus,  i.  107,  merely  mentioned  the  capture  of 
Xineveh  by  the  Medes,  giving  no  detailed  account,  while  in  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions  there  is  absolutely  no  reference  to  the 
event.  Equally  silent  are  the  documents  of  Nabopolassar,  the 
father  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  first  independent  king  of  Baby- 
lon, in  which,  in  view  of  the  statement  of  Berossus,  just  men- 
tioned, we  might  expect  to  find  some  allusion  to  the  overthrow 
of  Assyria. 

Winckler's  opinion,  based  on  the  silence  of  Herodotus  I.  c. 
regarding  the  participation  of  the  Babylonians  in  the  siege  of 
Nineveh,  was  that  the  Medes  captured  the  Assyrian  capital 
alone.  This  view  has  been  rightly  objected  to  by  Lehmann, 
4  Samassumukin,'  ii.  185.  An  '  argumentum  ex  silentio' is  at 
best  poor  reasoning.  Moreover,  Tiele  has  pointed  out  that  the 
continuation  of  the  Babylonian  power  would  have  been  impos- 
sible had  Nabopolassar  remained  neutral  in  the  war  between 
Media  and  Assyria  (see  Ztschr.  far  Assyriologie,  vii.  p.  19). 

33  ASdahak  is  the  Armenian  form  of  Astyages,  see  note  to  Annals, 
ii.  2.  For  this  and  fuller  ancient  opinions  regarding  the  part  of  the 
Babylonians  in  the  fall  of  Nineveh  we  may  compare  Delattre,  '  Les 
Chaldeens  jusqu'a  la  formation  de  1'Empire  de  Nabochodonossor,'  and 
Tiele,  '  Geschichte,'  414  and  421. 

6 


42 

The  account  of  Berossus  then,  regarding  the  Babylonian  and 
Median  alliance  against  Assyria  seems  to  commend  itself  to 
good  judgment. 

At  any  rate  the  chief  facts  are  certainly  clear :  Nineveh  was 
destroyed, — so  thoroughly  that  Xenophon,  when  crossing  Asia 
in  401  B.  C.  with  the  ten  thousand,  mistook  the  ruins  of  the 
great  city  for  those  of  Median  towns  laid  waste  by  the  Persians. 
(See  Anabasis,  iii.  4;  iv.  12,  and  compare  in  this  connection 
Zephaniah  ii.  13-15.)  It  seems  generally  recognized,  and  the 
opinion  of  almost  all  antiquity  (the  untrustworthy  records  of 
Abydenus  excepted),  that  the  Medes  played  the  chief  part  in 
the  ruin  of  Assyria,  and  in  this  historical  fact  I  believe  lies  the 
key  to  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  Darius  the  Median. 

The  interpolation  by  the  author  of  Daniel  of  a  Median  rule 
in  Babylon  directly  after  the  fall  of  the  Babylonian  house 
may  possibly  depend  on  a  confusion  between  the  story  of  the 
fall  of  Nineveh  and  the  account  of  the  overthrow  of  Babylon. 
Nineveh  fell  at  the  hands  of  the  Medes.  Some  authors  might 
differ  as  to  the  name  of  the  Median  prince  who  destroyed  it, 
but  it  seems  to  have  been  generally  recognized  by  the  ancients 
that  the  Medes  captured  and  overthrew  the  city.  Babylon  was 
conquered  by  Cyrus  the  Persian,  who  had  but  a  few  years  pre- 
viously subdued  these  same  Medes  to  his  standard.  What 
more  natural  than  that  an  author  writing  at  a  much  later 
period  and  having  no  historical,  but  rather  a  moral  object  in 
view,  should  confuse  the  accounts  of  the  fall  of  the  two  great 
cities  of  the  ancient  world  ?  The  author  of  Daniel,  probably 
influenced  by  the  story  of  the  fall  of  Nineveh,  as  a  more  vivid 
fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  of  the  mysterious  writing,  makes 
a  Median  ruler  receive  Babylon  after  the  overthrow* of  the 
native  dynasty,  and  then  mentions  later  the  historical  Cyrus. 
We  may  suppose  that  the  Biblical  writer  believed  that  Cyrus 
succeeded  to  the  empire  of  Babylon  on  the  death  of  the 
Median  Darius. 

B.  The  second  question,  however,  still  remains  unanswered. 
Why  did  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  give  to  his  ficti- 
tious Median  king  the  familiar  name  of  Darius  ? 

As  early  as  the  eleventh  century  of  our  era  the  view  was 
advanced  by  the  Benedictine  monk,  Marianus  Scotus 


43 

(quoted  Bertholdt,  '  Daniel/  844),  that  Darius  the  Median  was 
Darius  Hystaspis,  and,  on  examining  certain  points  in  the 
account  of  Daniel,  it  will  appear  that  this  is  probably  the 
correct  solution  of  the  difficulty.  In  chapter  ix.  1,  Darius  the 
Median  is  said  to  be  the  son  of  Xerxes  (Ahasuerus),  and  it  is 
stated  that  he  established  one  hundred  and  twenty  satrapies ; 
Darius  Hystaspis  was  the  father  of  Xerxes  and  according  to 
Herodotus,  iii.  89,  established  twenty  satrapies.  Darius  the 
Median  entered  into  possession  of  Babylon  after  the  death  of 
Belshazzar ;  Darius  Hystaspis  conquered  Babylon  from  the 
hands  of  the  rebels.  (So  Herodotus  iii.  153-160.)  It  seems 
clear  from  this  comparison,  and  in  view  of  the  impossibility  of 
reconciling  with  history  the  existence  of  a  Median  ruler  of 
Babylon,  that  the  name  Darius  in  Daniel  is  due  to  a  confusion 
with  that  of  the  son  of  Hystaspis.34 

Just  as  Xenophon  made  Cyaxares  the  son  of  Astyages,  so 
the  writer  of  Daniel  must  have  made  his  Darius  the  son  of 
Xerxes,  and,  in  addition  to  this,  transferred  in  a  distorted  form 
certain  facts  of  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis  to  the  reign  of 
Darius  the  Mede.  (The  idea  as  stated  by  Friedrich  Delitzsch, 
in  the  '  Calwer  Bibellexicon,'  137,  138,  that  the  original  of 
Darius  the  Median  may  have  been  Cyrus'  general  Ugbaru 
(Gobryas),  who  captured  Babylon,  seems  very  unsatisfactory). 

Darius  the  Mede  appears  therefore  to  have  been  the  product 
of  a  mixture  of  traditions ;  on  the  one  hand,  the  story  of  the 
capture  and  destruction  of  Nineveh  by  the  Medes,  sixty-eight 
years  before  the  fall  of  Babylon,  may  have  contributed  to  the 
historical  confusion  of  the  author's  mind  and  influenced  him 
to  insert  a  Median  rule  in  Babylon  before  the  Persians  ;  while 
on  the  other  hand  the  fame  of  the  great  Darius  Hystaspis  and 
of  his  capture  of  Babylon  from  the  rebels  may  have  led  to  the 
choice  of  the  name  '  Darius '  for  the  Median  interloper,  and 
induced  the  Biblical  writer  to  ascribe  in  a  vague  way  certain 
events  of  the  life  of  the  former  to  the  reign  of  the  latter.35 

34  Compare  Beers,  '  Richtige  Vereinigung  der  Regierungsjahre,'  p.  22, 
Bertholdt,  '  Daniel, 'p.  iv.,  Lengerke, '  Dan.'  230,  and  lately  Kamphausen, 
'  Das  Buch  Daniel  und  die  neuere  Geschichtsf  orschung.'  p.  29. 

35  A  similar  confusion  of  persons  is  seen  in  the  well  known  Greek 
legend  concerning  the  fiery  death  of  Sardanapalus  (Asurbanipal).    Prof. 


44 

It  seems  apparent  therefore  that  the  interpolation  of  Darius 
the  Median  must  be  regarded  a*  the  third  and  perhaps  the  most 
glaring  inaccuracy  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

To  recapitulate  briefly :  the  assertion  that  Belshazzar  was 
the  last  king  of  Babylori,  the  introduction  of  the  Queen 
Dowager  at  a  feast  on  the  eve  of  the  capture  of  Babylon,  and 
the  interpolation  of  a  Median  king  Darius  between  the  native 
Babylonian  and  Persian  dynasties  are  all  contrary  to  history. 

Haupt  in  his  corrections  and  additions  to  the  Akkadische  und  Sumerische 
Keilschrifttexte  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Keilschriftsforschung,  ii.  pp.  2S2, 
rem.  4,  advanced  the  explanation  that  this  account  arose  from  a  con- 
fusion in  later  tradition  between  Sardanapalus  and  his  half-brother 
Samassurnukin,  who  having  rebelled  in  Babylon  against  his  brother, 
perished  in  the  flames  when  the  city  was  captured  by  the  victorious 
Assyrian  king.  This  theory  however  is  not  adopted  by  Lehmann, 
fc  Samassuniukin,'  p.  2,  who  is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  legend  may 
have  had  an  historical  basis  in  the  fact  that  Nineveh  was  destroyed  by 
fire,  at  the  time  of  its  capture  by  the  Medes.  (?) 


CHAPTER  THIRD. 

THE   REAL  VALUE  OF   THE   FIFTH   CHAPTER  OF  DANIEL. 

It  may  well  be  asked,  however,  if  these  inaccuracies  treated 
of  in  the  last  chapter  necessarily  show  that  the  account  of  the 
fifth  chapter  of  Daniel,  regarding  the  miraculous  appearance 
of  a  warning  writing  during  a  feast  on  the  eve  of  the  capture 
of  Babylon,  is  invented,  and  if  it  is  not  possible  that  there 
may  be  here  an  echo  of  history  which  can  still  be  detected. 
This  question  may  certainly  be  answered  in  the  affirmative. 

AVe  have  already  seen  that  it  is  possible  to  explain  both  the 
true  meaning  of  the  mysterious  sentence,  and  why  the  phrase 
might  have  been  unintelligible  to  the  hierogrammatists.  We 
may  ask,  furthermore,  whether  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
consider  the  portent  a  miracle  and  whether  it  is  not  possible 
that  the  inscription  was  produced  by  human  means. 

Two  theories  have  been  advanced  as  to  a  possible  non-mirac- 
ulous production  of  the  writing :  some  scholars  have  held  that 
it  might  have  been  made  by  loyal  servants  of  the  king ;  others 
have  regarded  it  as  the  work  of  conspirators. 

The  former  supposition  which  was  advanced,  for  instance,  by 
Bertholdt,1  does  not  seem  tenable,  as  loyal  servants  would 
hardly  have  used  such  a  disrespectful  sentence  with  which  to 
warn  their  master.  It  must  be  remembered,  of  course,  that  the 
symbolical  meaning  of  the  phrase  was  not  known  when  this 
suggestion  was  offered. 

The  second  theory,  that  it  might  have  been  produced  by 
conspirators  against  the  royal  house,  has  more  inherent  proba- 
bility.2 Judging  from  the  historical  accounts  of  the  period,  a 
powerful  conspiracy  must  have  been  concerned  in  the  over- 
throw of  the  Babylonian  power.  It  may  be  well,  therefore, 
in  this  connection,  before  entering  on  the  discussion  concerning 

1  Bertholdt,  Daniel,  p.  353. 

-  In  justice  to  Bertholdt  it  should  be  remarked  that  he  mentioned 
this  supposition  also  as  a  possible  conjecture. 


46 

the  character  and  value  of  the  Biblical  account,  to  state  briefly 
the  history  of  the  fall  of  Babylon,  comparing,  the  most  impor- 
tant versions. 

Previous  to  the  discovery  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  relat- 
ing to  this  event,  comparatively  little  could  be  known  accu- 
rately. The  chief  sources  upon  which  historians  were  forced 
to  depend  were  the  account  of  Berossus,  which  Eusebius  and 
Josephus  took  from  Alexander  Polyhistor,  and  the  narrative  of 
Herodotus,  i.  188  j^.  The  statement  of  Berossus  in  Josephus, 
6  Contra  Apionem,'  i.  20,  is  as  follows  :3  i  ISTabuchodonosor  .  .  . 
fell  sick  and  departed  this  life  when  he  had  reigned  forty-three 
years,  whereupon  his  son  Evilmerodach  obtained  the  kingdom. 
He  governed  public  affairs  after  an  illegal  and  impure  manner, 
and  had  a  plot  laid  against  him  by  JSTeriglissar,  his  sister's  hus- 
band, and  was  slain  by  him  when  he  had  reigned  but  two 
years.  After  he  was  slain,  Neriglissar,  the  person  who  had 
plotted  against  him,  succeeded  to  the  kingdom  and  reigned  four 
years.  His  son,  Laborosoarchod,  though  but  a  child,  obtained  the 
kingdom  and  kept  it  nine  months,  but  by  reason  of  the  very 
ill  temper  and  ill  practices  which  he  exhibited  to  the  world,  a 
plot  was  laid  against  him  by  his  friends  and  he  was  tortured  to 

3  Na(3ov%o6ov6Gopo(;  .  .  .  sfiireauv  kig  appuariav  perr/ 'Ahdgaro  rbv  fliov, 
fleflaoifavKuc;  err}  reaaapdKovra  rpia,  rrjq  6e  flaaihtias  Kvpioz  e-yevero  6  vibg  ai)Tov 
Ewfy/apddoi^of.  Oirof  Trpoordf  TUV  Trpay/LidTuv  dvo/uuz  Kal  ao-e/lywf,  £Tuflovfavd-£i£ 
VTTO  TOV  TTJV  adetyrjv  £%OVTO(;  ai)Tov  Nqpfyhiaaodpov  avrfpeftr],  fiaaifevaac  en?  6vo. 
Merd  6s  TO  dvatpe^vat  TOVTOV  (Jmde£d/zevof  Trjv  dpxfo  6  STrtSovhevoas  avriS 
Nqpi-yhicrao6po(;  eBaaihevaev  err)  reaaapa.  TOVTOV  vlbg  A.a(3opoaodpxotio(;  envpievae 
fj,ev  rrjg  fia.GL'Xeiaz  TraZf  &v  fJirjvaQ  ewea,  zTripovfov&etz  6£  6id  TO  iroAha  e/2(j>alv£iv 
K.aKof/&q  VTTO  TUV  fy'ihuv  aTTeTVfjLTTavia^r] .  ' ATT oho JUEVOV  6£  TOVTOV  avve'k$6vT£(;  01 

£TTl(3ov}i£VffaVT££     CLVTU      K.OIV1J      TTjV     f3afft^£iav     TTEplE'&rjK.av     Na/?OW7?(5cj     TiVt     TUV     £K 

OVTL  EK  rf/q  avTijq  £TriavaTda£u^  .  .   .   Qvorjq  6e  rfjq  /Baaifaias  avTov  ev  rcJ 

£TSl    7TpO£^£7i^V&(Jf    KvpO£  £K  TTjq  Hepai6of  /LISTO,  dvi>djU.£(J(;  TTO?Ch,ij(;  Kttl 

Trjv  Tionrr/y  'Aaiav  wacav  hpurjaev  ETTI  rfj^  ~Ba(3v9iG)via^.  Ala'&d- 
Trjv  tyodov  UVTOV  airavTrjaag  //era  rrjc,  6vvd/ueo)^  Kal  Trapara^dfjLe- 
Ty  /ud%ri  Kal  qvyuv  o/l^oCTrdf  avvEKfeio'&Tj  e^  rrjv  ~Boponnrr]V(i)V  7r6/\,iv. 
6e  Bafivhuva  KaTaha(36/nevo<;  Kal  cvvTa^ag  TO.  £^u  TTJQ,  rrdfauc,  TEI^TJ  KaTaand- 
ipai  6td  Tb  Mav  avT(J  Trpa-y/uaTiKijv  Kal  SvcdhuTov  tyavf]vai  TTJV  Trohiv  ave&vt-ev 
£7rl  Bopannrov  fKTToAiopKt/fruv  TOV  Naftovvqdov.  Tov  6f  ~Nafiovvq6ov  ov%  vKondv- 
Trjv  Trohiopniav  a/l/l',  ey^e^tcrafrof  avTov  TrpoTepov,  ^p^(rd//evof  Kvpof  tyiXav- 
dove  oiKTjTTjpiov  ai)TG}  Kap/iaviav  ^Tre/^ej;  f/c  rfjc,  ~Ba(3vhuvia(;.  Nafiov- 
V  ovv  TO  hoiirbv  TOV  %povov  diayevdjU-Evoz  £v  kudvij  rf/ 


47 

death.  After  his  death  the.  conspirators  got  together  and  l»y 
common  consent  put  the  crown  upon  the  head  of  Xabonnedus, 
a  man  of  Babylon  and  one  who  belonged  to  that  insurrection. 
.  .  .  But  when  he  was  come  to  the  seventeenth  year  of  his 
iviii'n,  Cyrus  came  out  of  Persia  with  a  great  army,  and  hav- 
ing already  conquered  the  rest  of  Asia,  came  hastily  to  Babylon. 
When  Xabonnedus  perceived  that  he  was  coming  to  attack 
him.  he  met  him  with  his  forces,  and  joining  battle  was  de- 
feated and  fled  away  with  a  few  of  his  troops  and  shut  himself 
up  within  the  city  of  Borsippus.  Hereupon  Cyrus  took  Baby- 
lon and  gave  order  that  the  outer  wall  of  the  city  be  demol- 
ished, because  the  city  had  proved  very  troublesome,  and  cost 
him  a  great  deal  of  pains  to  take.  He  then  marched  to  Borsip- 
pus to  besiege  Xabonnedus.  As  Nabonnedns,  however,  did  not 
sustain  the  siege,  but  delivered  himself  up  beforehand,  he  was 
kindly  used  by  Cyrus  who  gave  him  Carmania  as  a  place  to 
dwell  in,  sending  him  out  of  Babylon.  Xabonnedus  accord- 
ingly spent  the  rest  of  his  life  in  that  country  and  there  died.' 
(For  this  last  statement  concerning  the  banishment  of  Nabon- 
nedus  to  Carmania,  cf.  also  Euseb.,  '  Evang.  Preep.'  ix.  40,  41, 
and  '  Chron.  Armen.'  i.  10,  the  account  of  Abydenus.) 

Herodotus,  i.  188 ff.  relates  that  the  King  of  Babylon, 
Labynetus,  the  son  of  the  great  queen  Xitocris,  was  attacked 
by  Cyrus.  The  Persian  king,  on  his  march  to  Babylon, 
arrived  at  the  river  Gyndes,  a  tributary  of  the  Tigris.  While 
the  Persians  were  trying  to  cross  this  stream,  one  of  the  white 
consecrated  horses  boldly  entered  the  water  and,  being  swept 
away  by  the  rapidity  of  the  current,  was  lost.  Cyrus,  exas- 
perated by  the  accident,  suspended  his  operations  against  Baby- 
lon and  wasted  the  entire  summer  in  satisfying  his  resentment 
by  draining  the  river  dry.  On  the  approach  of  the  following 
spring,  however,  he  marched  against  Babylon.  The  Babylon- 
ians, as  he  advanced,  met  and  gave  him  battle,  but  were  defeated 
and  driven  back  into  the  city.  The  inhabitants  of  Babylon 
had  previously  guarded  against  a  siege  by  collecting  provisions 
and  other  necessaries  sufficient  for  many  years'  support,  so 
that  Cyrus  was  compelled  to  resort  to  stratagem.  He  accord- 


48 

ingly4  4  placed  one  detachment  of  his  forces  where  the  river  first 
enters  the  city  and  another  where  it  leaves  it,  directing  them 
to  go  into  the  channel  and  attack  the  town  wherever  the  passage 
could  be  effected.  After  this  disposition  of  his  men  he  with- 
drew with  the  less  effective  of  his  troops  to  the  marshy  ground 
.  .  .  and  pierced  the  bank,  introducing  the  river  into  the  lake 
(the  lake  made  by  Nitocris  some  distance  from  Babylon,  see 
Herodotus,  i.  185),  by  which  means  the  bed  of  the  Euphrates 
became  sufficiently  shallow  for  the  object  in  view.  The  Per- 
sians in  their  station  watched  the  better  opportunity  and  when 
the  stream  had  so  far  retired  as  not  to  be  higher  than  their 
thighs  they  entered  Babylon  without  difficulty.'  The  account 
goes  on  to  say  that,  as  the  Babylonians  were  engaged  in  a.  fes- 
tival, they  were  completely  surprised  by  the  sudden  attack  and 
unable  to  defend  the  city  which  thus  fell  an  easy  prey  to  the 
invaders. 

The  two  cuneiform  documents  relating  to  the  fall  of  Babylon 
which  have  shed  a  wonderful  light  on  this  period  of  the  world's 
history  are  the  Cyrus  Cylinder  and  the  Annals  of  Nabonidus, 
both  of  which  are  translated  and  explained  in  APPENDIX  I. 
The  former  was  discovered  in  1879  by  the  workmen  of  Hor- 
muzd  Rassam  in  the  ruins  of  Qacr  at  Babylon,  a  hill  which, 
according  to  the  opinion  of  Eassam,  covers  the  remains  of  a 
great  palace,  i.  e.  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  tablet  called 
the  '  Annals  of  Nabonidus  '  was  obtained  by  the  British  Mu- 
seum in  18T9  from  Spartoli  and  Co.  The  place  where  it  was 
found  is  unknown,  although  Mr.  Pinches  declares  decidedly 
that  the  document  came  from  Babylon.  It  seems  to  belong  to 
a  series  of  annalistic  tablets  which  were  collected  and  pre- 
served by  the  Achsemenian  kings.  (See  further,  APPENDIX  I.) 
The  Cyrus  Cylinder  is  a  highly  laudatory  account  of  Cyrus's 


4  Td^ag  TIJV  crparirjv  airaoav  k%  e/jfiohf/g  rov  iroTa/j,ov  ry  eg  rr/v  ir6"X(,v 
nal  brcLG'&e  avTcg  r^g  Trd/taof  rd^ag  erepovg  ry  et-iet  en  rfjq  TroAiog  6  7rora//df,  rrpoeiTre 
TCJ  arparv  brav  6iaj3arbv  rb  peedpov  ISuvrai  yevo/uevov  evievai  ravry  eg  TTJV  nokiv. 
OijT(J  rd^ag  Kai  /card  ravra  irapaiviaa^  (nrfflavve  aiirbg  GVV  rui  axprj'iG)  rov  arparov. 
rbv  yap  TTOTafibv  6iupv^i  ecayayuv  £f  rfjv  "kifjLvrjv  kovcav  £/lof  TO  ap%alov 
pzeftpov  diafiarbv  elvai  EKoirjOE  .  .  .  ol  Hepaai  o'nrep  crerd^aro  'CTT'  avru  rof'rcj  /card 
TO  peefipov  TOV  Eii^/37/rew  TTOTCI/LIOV  virovevoarrjubTog  avdpl  wf  ££  fiiaov  fitjpbv  /na^tcrd 
K.TI  /card  TOVTO  kcyeaav  eg  TT/V 


49 

glorious  entrance  into  Babylon,  evidently  written  by  some 
scribe  under  the  Persian  rule,  wbile  tbe  so-called  Annals  is  a 
concise  historical  summary  of  the  events  of  the  reign  of 
Xabonidus  until  the  accession  of  Cyrus,  a  paragraph  being 
devoted  to  the  events  of  each  year. 

Before  passing  on  to  the  history  of  the  advance  of  the 
Persians  on  Babylonia  the  following  facts  should  be  noticed. 
After  Cyrus,  king  of  the  unimportant  state  of  Ansan,*  accord- 
ing to  the  record  of  the  Annals,  had  gotten  possession  of  Media, 
the  Persian  prince  finding  himself  transformed  from  the  ruler 
of  an  insignificant  province  to  the  leader  of  a  great  kingdom, 
turned  his  eyes  westward.  Here  Xabonidus  the  king  of  Bab- 
ylon, who  had  at  first  regarded  the  defeat  of  his  old  enemies 
the  Medes6  as  a  direct  intervention  of  the  gods,  now  becom- 
ing alarmed  at  the  sudden  rise  of  this  new  power  concluded 
an  offensive  and  defensive  alliance  with  Lydia  and  Egypt,  a 
league  which  should  certainly  have  been  sufficient  to  check  the 
advance  of  the  Persian  forces.  Lydia  was  compelled,  how- 
ever, by  the  swift  movements  of  the  enemy  to  defend  herself 
without  waiting  for  her  allies.  Cyrus,  after  totally  routing  the 
Lydian  army  at  Pteria,7  proceeded  directly  against  Sardis,  the 
capital,  which  he  captured  without  difficulty  and  there  estab- 
lished his  permanent  headquarters  in  the  northwest.  The  Per- 
sian king  did  not  hasten  at  once  against  Babylonia,  his  second 
powerful  rival,  but,  after  settling  affairs  in  Lydia  and  ap- 

5  For  the  chronology  of  Cyrus'  reign,  his  ancestry  and  kingdom,  see 
Appendix  I,  note  to  Cyrus  Cyl.,  1.  21  and  to  Annals,  col.  2,  1.  15. 

"The  Medes  during  the  reign  of  Nabonidus  had  attacked  and 
destroyed  the  city  of  Harran  and  the  temple  of  Sin.  Cf .  VR.  64.  12. 

"See  Herodotus,  i.  76.  Note  that  Justin.  Hist.,  i.  7.  makes  Cyrus 
begin  the  war  with  Babylon  before  that  with  Lydia,  interrupting  his 
conflict  however,  in  order  to  conquer  Croesus  who  had  offered  aid  to 
Babylon.  Sulpicius,  Hist.,  ii.  10,  passed  directly  from  the  Median  con- 
quest to  that  of  Babylonia.— Croesus,  king  of  Lydia,  whom  Cyrus  cap- 
tured, was  according  to  Herodotus,  i,  75,  the  brother-in-law  of  Asty- 
ages.  Cyrus  treated  him  kindly  and  gave  him  the  city  of  Barene  near 
Ecbataiia  as  a  residence,  according  to  Ctesias,  with  five  thousand 
riders  and  ten  thousand  bowmen  as  retinue. 


50 

pointing  governors8  over  all  the  conquered  provinces,  returned 
to  Ecbatana. 

The  following  historical  account  of  the  approach  of  Cyrus 
on  Babylonia  and  the  fall  of  that  empire  may  be  gathered 
from  the  Annals  of  Nabonidus  and  the  Cyrus  Cylinder. 

The  record  of  the  Annals,  which  must  have  been  very  com- 
plete, is  unhappily  so  mutilated  that  comparatively  little  can  be 
learned  about  the  early  period  of  the  invasion.  We  may  con- 
jecture from  a  very  broken  passage  (col.  ii.  I.  21-22)  that  the 
Persians  may  have  made  an  invasion  from  Elam  against  Erech 
in  the  tenth  year  of  Nabonidus  (see  note  to  passage,  APPENDIX 
I)?  but  this  is  by  no  means  certain.  Where  the  text  treating 
of  the  actual  conquest  of  Babylon  is  legible,  the  matter  seems 
practically  to  be  decided.  It  is  stated  that  Nabonidus  entered 
the  Temple  of  Eturkalama  (Annals,  iii.  6),  most  probably  to 
seek  help  from  the  gods.  We  may  then  conjecture, — the 
translation  is  very  doubtful, — that  a  rebellion  against  his 
authority  took  place  on  the  lower  sea.  The  god  Bel  was 
apparently  brought  out  with  a  solemn  religious  festival  (col. 
iii.  8.  9.  10),  and,  as  a  last  resource,  numerous  deities  were 
brought  to  Babylon  as  a  protection  to  that  city.  This, 
says  the  chronicler  of  the  '  Cyrus  Cylinder,'  so  infuriated 
Marduk,  the  god  of  the  city  of  Babylon,  that  he  decided  to 
deliver  up  JSTabonidus  to  Cyrus  (see  Cyl.  10^".  and  33,  34). 
In  the  month  Tammuz  (539  B.  C.)  Cyrus  offered  battle  at  Opis 
and  apparently  also  on  a  canal  (?)  Salsallat,  which  evidently 
resulted  in  his  favor.  (See  note  to  Annals,  col.  iii.  L  12, 
APPENDIX  I.)  The  Babylonians,  defeated  on  all  sides  and  dis- 
gusted with  their  feeble  king,  surrendered  Sippar  to  the  Per- 
sians on  the  14th  of  Tammuz  (539-538  B.  C.,'see  Annals  iii.  14). 
As  this  city  was  the  key  to  tKe  whole  sluice  region  it  was 
important  for  Cyrus  to  get  possession  of  it  before  he  could 
besiege  Babylon  successfully.  By  breaking  the  dams  at  Sippar 
in  case  of  need,  the  water  could  be  cut  off  from  all  the  plain. 
As  we  have  seen,  according  to  the  account  of  Herodotus  just 

8  See  Herodotus,  i.  153.  The  post  of  governor  of  Sardis  was  one  of  the 
most  important  positions  in  the  Persian  Empire.  This  official  seems  to 
have  held  the  precedence  over  the  neighboring  satraps.  Compare 
Noldeke.  A.ufsatze  zur  altpersischen  Geschichte,  p.  21. 


51 

given  above,  Babylon  was  said  to  have  been  captured  by  the 
device  of  drawing  off  the  water  of  the  Euphrates  (cf.  also 
Xenophon,  Cyropaedia,  vii.  5,  15),  but  the  short  space  of  time 
intervening  between  the  capture  of  Sippar  and  Babylon  seems 
to  show  that  no  such  device  was  resorted  to.  Two  days  after 
the  capture  of  Sippar  (16th  of  Tammuz),  the  gates  of  the 
capital  itself  were  opened  to  Gobryas,9  the  governor  of 
Gutium  and  commander  of  a  section  of  the  Persian  army, 
who  formally  took  possession  of  the  city  in  Cyrus's  name. 
Annals,  iii.  15,  and  Cyl.,  I.  IT,  '  without  strife  and  battle 
he  let  him  enter  into  Babylon.') 

JsTabonidus,  who  had  fled  to  Babylon  after  the  capture  of 
Sippar,  was  taken  prisoner  and  held  to  await  the  coming  of 
Cyrus.  Here  again,  owing  to  a  doubtful  text,  we  are  reduced 
to  conjecture.  The  Babylonian  party  seem  to  have  wished  to 
use  the  temples  as  storehouses  for  arms(?),  for  the  troops  of 
Gobryas  surrounded  them  and  guarded  them  carefully.  (For 
other  opinions  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  passage  see  note  to 
col.  iii.,  I.  IT,  Annals,  APPENDIX  I.) 

Four  months  later,  on  the  third  of  Marchesvan,  Cyrus  him- 
self entered  the  city  of  Babylon  and  decreed  peace  to  all, 
appointing  his  general  Gobryas  governor  of  the  city  and  send- 
ing back  to  their  own  shrines  the  gods  which  Nabonidus  had 
brought  to  Babylon.  (See  Annals,  iii.  21.  and  Cyl.  33-34.) 
The  Persian  monarch  was  received  with  great  rejoicings  by 
the  nobles,  priests  and  people,  who  hastened  to  declare  their 
allegiance  (Cyl.  18).  He  then  assumed  formally  the  title  of 
king  of  Babylon  and  of  Sinner  and  Akkad  (Cyl.  20),  receiving 

'  In  the  record  of  the  cylinder  no  mention  is  made  of  Gobryas  ;  it  is 
simply  stated  that  Cyrus  and  his  army  entered  the  city  without  battle. 
See  Cyl.,  16.  17.  The  Annals,  however,  give  more  details  of  the  conquest 
and,  moreover,  are  a  strictly  impartial  account.  It  is  much  more  flat- 
tering to  Cyrus  to  attribute  to  him,  as  in  the  Cylinder,  all  the  glory  of 
the  capture  and  not  mention  any  of  his  generals.  It  is  interesting  to 
notice  that  Xen.,  Cyrop.,  vii.  5,  24:  ff..  has  also  preserved  the  account  of 
the  capture  of  the  city  by  Gobryas,  making  him,  however,  a  great 
Assyrian  leader,  who,  desiring  vengeance  of  the  king  of  Babylon  for 
the  murder  of  his  only  son,  allied  himself  with  Cyrus.  According  to 
Xenophon,  Babylon  was  taken  by  the  two  generals,  Gobryas  and 
Gadates. 


52 

the  homage  of  the  tributary  kings  of  the  westland.10  (Cyl.  28.) 
It  is  probable,  in  accordance  with  the  account  of  Berossus, 
given  above,  that  Cyrus  dismantled  to  some  extent  the  fortifica- 
tions of  Babylon  soon  after  its  capture.  That  he  cannot 
utterly  have  destroyed  the  defences  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  the  city  stood  repeated  sieges  during  subsequent  revolts  ; 
one  under  Cyrus,  two  under  Darius  Hystaspis,  and  one  under 
Xerxes.11  Judging  from  the  assertion  of  Jerome  (Comm.  on 
Isaiah  iii.  23 ;  ed.  Yallarsi,  IV.  180),  that  the  walls  had  been 
repaired  and  renewed  as  an  enclosure  for  a  park,  they  were 
probably  at  no  time  completely  destroyed. 

The  causes  which  led  to  the  fall  of  the  Babylonian  dynasty 
and  to  the  transferring  of  the  empire  to  the  Persians  are  not 
difficult  to  determine. 

NabupCLluqui\  the  father  of  the  great  Nebuchadnezzar,  was 
the  first  independent  king  of  Babylon  after  the  overthrow  of 
Assyria.  After  an  uneventful  reign  of  twenty-one  years  he  was 
succeeded  by  his  son  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  real  founder  of  the 
empire  of  Babylon.  He  was  not  only  a  great  warrior  the  terror  of 
whose  arms  was  felt  as  far  as  Egypt,  and  who,  by  his  conquests 
made  Babylon  the  political  centre  of  a  mighty  empire,  but  also 
a  lover  of  art  and  architecture,  who  prized  his  reputation  as  the 
restorer  of  the  capital  far  more  than  his  military  fame.  (For 
the  glories  of  his  reign  see  Tiele,  '  Greschichte,'  441-454.)  As 
remarked  above,  Nebuchadnezzar  was  the  greatest  name  in 
Babylonian  history,  the  culminating  point  of  Babylonian  glory. 
After  his  time  the  kings  were  weak,  incapable  characters, 
judging  from  the  account  of  Berossus,  not  even  able  to  protect 
their  own  crowns.  The  last  King,  Nabonidus,  though  better 
than  his  immediate  predecessors,  was  the  creature  of  a  conspir- 

10  Gaza  alone  in  the  land  of  the  Philistines  seems  to  have  refused 
tribute  and  offered  resistance  ;  see  the  citation  to  Valesius  Polyb.,  xvi. 
40,  quoted  by  Noldeke,  Aufsatze,  23.  n.  2. 

11  See  G.  Rawlinson,  Herodotus,  425,  n.  5.     For  the  second  revolt  of 
Babylon,  see  Herod.,  iii.  153-160,  the  story  of  Zopyrus.     A  curious  work 
regarding  Zopyrus  is  that  of  Joh.  Christoph.  De  Zopyro    Babylonios 
fallente,  1685. 


53 

acy  against  his  youthful  predecessor  Labasi-MarduL1*  Nabo- 
nidus  was  probably  not  of  royal  blood,  as  it  is  stated  in  the 
record  of  Berossus  that  he  was  a  man  of  Babylon,  and  he  calls 
himself  in  his  inscriptions,  the  son  of  a  noble. 

It  will  appear,  therefore,  that  the  seeds  of  decay  were  ripen- 
ing fast,  as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  this  king, 
who,  had  he  been  a  different  character,  might  have  delayed  the 
final  catastrophe  at  least  beyond  his  own  lifetime.  But  Nabo- 
nidus,  as  is  evident  from  the  tone  of  the  records  of  his  reign, 
!»y  nature  a  peaceful  prince,  whose  taste  lay  not  in  govern- 
ment or  conquest  but  in  archaeology  and  religious  architecture. 
His  inscriptions  are  one  long  list  of  temples  repaired13  and  pious 
duties  performed.  Under  his  feeble  sway  the  vast  and  hete- 
rogeneous empire,  lacking  the  strong  hand  of  a  conquering 
ruler  to  punish  defection  and  protect  his  subjects  from  for- 
eign attacks,14  naturally  began  to  fall  to  pieces,  until  finally  the 

13  Compare  the  account  of  Berossus  given  above  and  the  record  of 
Abydenus  quoting  Megasthenes  as  saying  that  '  Labassoracus'  being 
destroyed,  they  made  JUa&awidoxK  ftaai/.ea  Trpoar/Kovra  ol  ovdev — king  hav- 
ing no  claim  to  this  rank  ;  see  Euseb.  Praep.,  Evang.,  ix.  40,  41 ;  Euseb., 
Chron.  Armen.  i.  c.  10. 

The  succession  of  Babylonian  Kings  given  by  Berossus  is  quite  cor- 
rect and  agrees  not  only  with  the  Ptolemasan  Canon  but  with  the 
cuneiform  inscriptions.  The  list  of  kings  with  their  approximate 
dates  is  as  follows  :— 

Nabu-pal-ucur,  625-605  B.C. 

Xabu-kudurri-ugur,  604-562  B.C. 

Amil-Marduk,  561-560  B.C. 

Nergal-sar-uc,ur,  559-556  B.C. 

Labasi-Marduk  between  the  14th  of  Aru,   556,  and  the  12th  of 
Duzu,  555. 

Nabu-na'id,  554-538  B.C. 

The  Ptolemasan  canon  omits  Labasi-Marduk  son  of  Nergal-sar-ugur, 
probably  owing  to  his  short  reign  of  but  nine  months.  Only  those 
kings  are  recorded  who  governed  for  longer  than  one  year  ;  see  Floigl, 
'  Cyrus  und  Herodot.'  p.  70.  According  to  Abydenus,  Labasi-Marduk 
was  a  boy  not  older  than  twelve  years.  See  Floigl,  op.  cit.  25,  and  com- 
pare in  this  connection,  Tiele,  Gesch.  424,  n.  2. 

13  Hagen  in  the  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie,  ii.  237,  note,  gives  a  com- 
plete list  of  the  temples  repaired  by  Nabonidus. 

14  The  king  seems  to  have  been  unable  either  to  prevent  the  attack  of 
the  Medes  on  Harran  or  to  punish  them  for  their  destruction  of  the 
city.     (See  above  note  6  to  this  chapter).     He  was  equally  powerless 
to  resist  the  expedition  of  Aniasis  of  Egypt  against  Cyprus  by  which 
several  cities  were  captured.     (See  Tiele,  Gesch.  468). 


54 

Babylonian  name  in  Western  Asia,  became  more  a  shadow 
than  a  reality. 

Toward  the  close  of  his  reign  Nabonidus  snowed  himself 
even  more  incapable  than  in  his  earlier  years,  for  while  devot- 
ing especial  attention  to  the  repairing  and  maintenance  of  the 
temples,  he  entirely  neglected  the  defences  of  the  capital, 
choosing  to  live  in  Tema15  rather  than  in  Babylon,  and  evidently 
leaving  all  military  matters  to  his  son,  who,  as  shown  above, 
was  probably  in  command  of  the  army.  Practically  no  steps 
seem  to  have  been  taken  either  to  prevent  the  advance  of  the 
Persians  or  to  meet  them  when  they  came,  so  that  when  Cyrus 
arrived  he  probably  found  a  people  discontented  with  their 
king  and  ready  to  exchange  his  rule  for  a  firmer  sway.  The 
fact  that  both  Sippar  and  Babylon  were  taken  by  the  Persian 
forces  'without  battle'  certainly  seems  to  show  that  there 
existed  a  powerful  faction  in  Babylonia  in  league  with  the 
invaders. 

It  is  possible  that  the  priests  of  Marduk  in  the  city  of  Baby- 
lon were  especially  instrumental  in  bringing  about  the  final 
blow.  We  have  already  noticed  that  the  priesthood  was  prob- 
ably hostile  to  Belsarugur  the  crown-prince.  It  can  easily 
be  imagined  how,  disgusted  with  the  king's  neglect  of  the  reg- 
ular offerings  and  finally  infuriated  with  his  infringement  on 
the  jurisdiction  of  their  god  in  introducing  strange  deities  into 
Babylon,  they  would  naturally  have  cast  their  influence  in  favor 
of  a  change  of  rule.18  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  priests 
exercised  the  most  powerful  influence  in  Babylonian  affairs, 
being  even  stronger  than  the  royal  house.  The  inscriptions  of 
every  sort  point  to  the  supremacy  and  importance  of  the  reli- 

15  For  Tema  see  note  col.  ii.,  1.  5,  Annals,  Appendix  I. 

16  Nabonidus  was  certainly  not  a  reactionary  heretic  who  tried  to  intro- 
duce a  Sin  cult;  (so  Floigl,  Cyrus  und  Her.,  p.  2),  first,  because  the  king 
did  not  confine  his  attention  to  Sin  (cf.  the  list  of  the  temples  repaired, 
Hagen,  Beitr.   ii.    237  note,)  and  secondly,   as  Tiele  has  pointed  out 
(Geschichte,  460),  it  was  the  priests  of  Marduk   who  inspired  him  to 
repair  the  temples  and  to  give  attention  to  the  cults  of  other  deities. 
Compare  V  R.  64,  16,  where  Marduk  reveals  his  will  in  this  connection 
to  Nabonidus  in  a  dream.     The  insult  to  Marduk  which  turned  the  scale 
against  the  king  was  his  criminal  slothf  ulness  about  protecting  Babylon 
and  his  introduction  of  other  gods  into  Marduk's  own  city. 


55 

gious  <-lusM.'>.  one  of  the  most  constant  themes  of  these  docu- 
ments being  the  frequent  allusion  to  buildings  of  temples,  tem- 
ple gifts,  restoration  of  offerings,  etc.  This  prominence  of  the 
priestly  classes  is  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  they  were  the 
custodians  of  all  knowledge.  The  arts  of  writing,  astronomy, 
and  magic  were  their  peculiar  provinces.  It  will  readily  be 
understood,  therefore,  that  their  favor  or  disfavor  would  turn 
tin-  scale  in  an  attempt  against  the  reigning  dynasty.  In  addi- 
tion to  this  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  large  Jewish  element . 
which  had  been  transplanted  to  Babylon  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  which  could  not  be  expected  to  feel  especially  well  disposed 
toward  the  Babylonian  dynasty,  probably  played  a  considerable 
part  in  the  final  conspiracy.  Their  reasons  for  so  doing  were 
of  course  not  identical  with  those  of  the  rebellious  Babylonians. 
It  may  be  supposed  that  the  native  Babylonians,  glad  at  any 
price  to  be  rid  of  their  incompetent  ruler,  were  forced  to  make 
the  best  of  a  foreign  supremacy,  while  the  religious  element 
among  the  captive  Jews,  to  whom  permission  to  return  to  Pal- 
estine may  have  been  promised  beforehand,17  certainly  regarded 
Cyrus  as  the  Anointed  of  Jehovah,  who  would  carry  out  His 
will  in  every  respect  and  utterly  destroy  Babylon  and  its  Gods, 
a  hope  which  Cyrus  was  wise  enough  not  to  realize.  Bearing 
in  mind,  therefore,  these  facts  it  seems  by  no  means  unnatural 
to  assume  that  such  a  warning  as  that  described  in  Dan.  v. 
might  have  been  caused  by  the  agency  of  conspirators,  and 
that  a  basis  of  historical  truth  may  underlie  the  account.  The 
tone  of  the  fifth  chapter,  however,  seems  to  show  beyond  doubt 
that  the  Biblical  writer  considered  the  portent  as  a  miracle  sent 
from  God,  to  warn  the  impious  king  of  his  impending  punish- 
ment. The  Maccabseau  author  of  Daniel  accordingly  makes 
use  of  the  account  against  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 

That  a  festival,  as  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Daniel,  actually 
took  place  on  the  eve  of  the  capture  of  Babylon  is  not  at  all 

17  Compare  the  enthusiastic  prophecies  regarding  the  destruction  of 
Babylon  and  the  references  to  Cyrus  the  shepherd  of  God,  Isaiah,  xiii. 
xiv.  xliv.  28,  xlv.  ;  Ps.  137.;  Jer.  1-li.  Cyrus  permitted  the  Jews  to 
return  to  their  old  home  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign— 537  B.C.  See 
Ezra,  i.  The  prophecies  of  the  destruction  of  Babylon  were  certainly 
not  carried  out,  the  only  one  fulfilled  to  the  letter  being  that  regarding 
the  return  of  the  Jews. 


56 

improbable."  Although  we  have  no  parallel  account  of  such 
an  event  in  the  inscriptions,19  it  certainly  seems  rather  significant 
that  both  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  allude  to  a  feast  at  this  time. 
As  we  have  seen,  according  to  Herodotus  i.  191,  Babylon  was 
captured  while  the  besieged  were  off  their  guard  during  a  festi- 
val. Xenophon  also,  alluding  to  the  capture  of  Babylon,  says 
that  Cyrus  had  heard  that  a  feast  was  going  on.  (Cyrop.  vii. 
5,  15.)  Of  course  the  allusion  in  Jeremiah  li.  39,  referred  to 
in  Rawlinson's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  424,  is  merely  general  and 
cannot  be  understood  as  referring  to  a  final  festival. 

It  is  now  demonstrated  by  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  that  at 
least  the  name  Belshazzar,20  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Old 
Testament,  is  based  on  correct  tradition,  notwithstanding  the 
errors  into  which  the  author  fell  regarding  the  person  of  the 
last  king.  Although  undoubtedly  wrong  in  considering  Bel- 
shazzar the  last  king  of  Babylon,  the  writer  of  Daniel  may  have 
been  influenced  in  this  particular  by  tradition.  JZelsarugur  was 
the  son  of  the  last  king,  and  was  probably  in  command  of  the 
army  and  actively  concerned  in  the  conflict  with  the  invading 
Persians.  We  cannot  doubt  that  he  was  a  person  of  great  polit- 
ical prominence  in  the  empire,  and  it  is  even  possible  that  he 

18  It  may  not  be  uninteresting  to  note,  that  Havernick,  Dan.  176,  fol- 
lowing Vorstius,  Exercit.  Acad.  4  identified  this  final  feast  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel  with  the  Sa/cam  which,  according  to  Athenseus  (Deipnosoph. 
xiv.  639)  corresponded  to  the  Saturnalia. 

19  In  the  Annals  of  Nabonidus,  iii.  8,  mention  is  made  of  a  religious 
festival  (the  New  Year's  feast)  which  took  place  probably  about  twelve 
months  before  the  capture  of  the  city.      This.  Andrea,  '  Beweis  des 
Glaubens,"88,  p.  257,  etc.,  believed  to  be  the  festival  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel ;  a  highly  improbable  theory. 

20  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Babylonian  proper  names  in  Daniel 
seem  to  be  for  the  most  part  genuine,  although  of  course  it  cannot  be 
supposed  that  the  author  understood  their  meaning.     In  fact  we  know 
from  his  explanation  of  the  name  Belteshazzar  that  this  was  not  the 
case.     See  note  b  to  verse  12,  Appendix  II.     Compare  in  this  connection 
the  names  Arioch,  Belteshazzar,  and  Abednego  which  are  traceable 
to  a  Babylonian  origin,  and  see  further  Friedr.  Delitzsch  in  the  Pre- 
face to  Baer  and  Delitzsch,  Text  of  Ezra,  Neh.  and  Daniel.      It  is 
instructive  to  observe  here  the  difference  between  the  genuine  names 
in  Daniel  and  the  spurious  character  of  those  in  the  book  of  Judith, 
showing  the  superiority  of  the  tradition  followed   by  the  author  of 
Daniel. 


57 

may  have  been  possessed  of  more  influence  than  his  father.  If 
this  were  the  case,  a  legend  making  the  crown-prince  the  real 
king  is  easily  to  be  explained. 

The  author  of  Daniel  seems  to  be  approximately  correct 
concerning  the  death  of  Belshazzar.  The  Biblical  Belshazzar 
was  slain  on  the  eve  of  the  capture  of  the  city  by  the  Persians, 
and  it  is  extremely  likely  from  a  new  reading  of  a  mutilated  pas- 
>age  in  the  Annals  of  Xabonidus  (iii.,  1.  23),  that  Bel&aruqur 
the  king's  son  met  his  death  soon  after  the  capture  of  Babylon 
by  ( 'yni>'>  forces.  If  the  reading  which  I  have  adopted  of  this 
passage  of  the  Annals  be  correct,  it  is  probable  that  after  the 
capture  of  Babylon,  Belshazzar  with  a  remnant  of  the  royal 
forces  made  a  last  despairing  resistance  which  was  crushed 
by  Cyrus's  general  Gobryas,  and  that  the  patriot  prince  thus 
met  his  death  at  the  hands  of  the  invader.21  The  Annals  go  on 
to  say  that  a  solemn  mourning  was  then  instituted,  probably 
by  order  of  Cyrus  himself. 

Of  course  nothing  certain  about  this  event  can  be  known 
until  a  duplicate  text  be  discovered  which  shall  supply  the  miss- 
ing words  of  the  mutilated  passage.  If  the  interpretation 
here  given  is  correct,  the  agreement  of  both  Herodotus  and 
Xenophon.  as  well  as  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  that  the  last  king 
of  Babylon  was  slain  at  the  time  of  the  capture  of  the  city, 
may  be  a  perversion  of  this  account  of  the  death  of  the  king's 
son.  It  is  interesting  to  note  here  that  the  author  of  Isaiah 
xiv.  19,  clearly  expected  the  destruction  of  the  last  king  of 
Babylon  with  the  overthrow  of  the  city.  We  may  conclude, 
then,  that  in  the  case  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,  the  tradition 
which  the  author  followed  in  calling  the  last  king  Belshazzar, 

-1  It  should  be  noticed  that  both  of  the  Babylonian  rebels  against 
Darius  Hystaspis  gave  themselves  out  to  be  Nebuchadnezzar,  son  of 
Nabonidus.  This  certainly  seems  to  show  that  at  that  time  Belsarugur, 
the  first  born  son  of  the  king,  was  generally  known  to  be  dead,  as 
otherwise  his  name  would  have  served  as  a  more  promising  catchword 
for  rebellion  than  that  of  a  younger  prince.  According  to  Behistun,  1, 
16 ;  3,  13  ;  4,  2,  the  names  of  these  two  rebellious  chiefs  were  Nadin- 
tabel.  son  of  Amri,  who  seems  to  have  been  for  a  short  time  successful 
in  his  rebellion,  as  there  are  a  few  contracts  dating  from  the  first  year 
of  his  reign  (Hommel,  Gesch.  787,  n.  1),  and  Arakh  an  Armenian  son  of 
Handikes.  Nothing  is  known  of  this  Nebuchadnezzar,  son  of  Nabonidus. 
8 

'      3- 


58 

may  have  arisen  from  the  prominence  of  the  son  of  Nabonidus 
during  his  father's  reign,  and  perhaps  especially  towards  its 
close,  in  the  government  of  Babylon ;  and  that  the  statement  of 
Belshazzar's  death  about  the  time  of  the  capture  of  Babylon 
possibly  had  its  origin  in  the  death  of  the  king's  son  at  the 
hands  of  the  Persians. 

The  preservation  of  the  name  Belshazzar,  found  only  here 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  now  confirmed  by  the  cuneiform 
inscriptions,  the  approximately  correct  statement  regarding 
his  death,  and  the  striking  agreement  just  mentioned  of  the 
record  of  Herodotus  and  the  Biblical  account  would  seem  to 
show,  therefore,  that  the  story  of  the  appearance  of  the  mys- 
terious sentence  may  not  altogether  lack  an  historical  element. 

The  Book  of  Daniel  loses  none  of  its  beauty  or  force,  because 
we  are  bound  in  the  light  of  modern  criticism  to  consider  it  a 
production  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  nor  should 
conservative  scholars  exclaim  because  the  historical  accuracy 
of  the  work  is  thus  destroyed.  If  the  book  be  properly  under- 
stood it  must  be  admitted  that  the  author  made  no  pretence  at 
exactness  of  detail.  To  assert,  furthermore,  with  some  excellent 
Christian  divines  that  with  the  Book  of  Daniel  the  whole  pro- 
phetic structure  of  the  Old  Testament  rises  or  falls,  is  as  illogi- 
cal as  the  statement  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  that  he  who  denies 
Daniel's  prophecies  denies  Christianity  !  If  we  consider  that 
these  '  prophecies '  were  never  intended  to  be  more  than  an 
historical  resume,  clothed  for  the  sake  of  greater  literary  vivid- 
ness in  a  prophetic  garb,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  such  a  con- 
clusion aifects  the  authenticity  of  utterances  of  other  authors 
which  may  really  have  been  meant  to  be  predictions  of  the 
future.  If  viewed  in  the  proper  light,  the  work  of  the  writer 
of  Daniel  can  certainly  not  be  called  a  forgery,  but,  as  men- 
tioned before,  merely  a  moral  and  political  pamphlet.  It 
should  certainly  be  possible  for  intelligent  Christians  to  con- 
sider the  book  just  as  powerful,  viewed,  according  to  the 
author's  intention,  as  a  consolation  to  God's  people  in  their 
dire  distress  at  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  as  if  it  were, 
what  an  ancient  but  mistaken  tradition  has  made  it,  really  an 
accurate  account  of  events  belonging  to  the  close  of  the  Baby- 
lonian period. 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

ADDITIONAL  NOTE  A. 

It  was  generally  recognized  by  the  ancients  that  the  Book  of  Daniel 
was  an  authentic  production.  The  references  in  the  New  Testament, 
(Matt.  xxiv.  15  ;  Mark  xiii.  14,  referring  to  Dan.  ix.  27  and  xii.  11)  ascribe 
the  book  especially  to  Daniel,  (cf.  also  Josephus,  x.  11,  7.)  In  Antt.  xi. 
8,  5,  Josephus  relates  the  oft-cited  fable  that  the  Prophecies  of  Daniel 
were  shown  to  Alexander  the  Great  on  his  entry  into  Jerusalem. 

The  first  known  writer  who  doubted  the  authenticity  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel  was  the  Neo-Platonist,  Porphyrius,  (A.D.  304),  who  in  his  great 
work  of  fifteen  books  directed  against  the  Christians  (\6yoi  Kara 
Xpia-iavtiv)  devoted  the  whole  twelfth  book  to  an  attack  on  Daniel, 
which  he  declared  to  have  been  originally  in  Greek,  the  work  of  a 
Jew  of  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphaues.  The  works  of  Porphyrius 
were  all  collected  and  burnt  by  orders  of  the  Emperors  Constantine 
and  Theodosius,  so  that  his  views  have  descended  to  posterity  only 
through  the  works  of  Jerome,  who  attempted  to  refute  his  arguments. 
According  to  the  statement  of  Jerome,  he  was  also  answered  by 
Methodius,  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  and  Eusebius  of  Caesarea. 

According  to  Origen,  the  pagan  Celsus  is  said  to  have  expressed  a 
doubt  concerning  the  truth  of  the  occurrences  described  in  Daniel. 
The  following  commentators  are  among  those  who  regarded  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  either  wholly  or  in  part,  as  belonging  to  the  time  of  Antio- 
chus Epiphanes  ;  Collins,  "Scheme  of  literal  Prophecy  considered," 
London,  1726  ;  Semler,  "  Untersuchungen  des  Canons,"  iii.  505 ;  Cor- 
rodi,  "  Versuche  liber  verschiedene  in  Theologie  und  Bibelkritik  ein- 
schlagende  Gegenstande,"  Berlin,  1783  ;  '  Versuch  einer  Beleuchtung 
der  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  und  Christlichen  Bibelkanons,'  vol.  i. 
Halle,  1792,  pp.  75/. ;  Eichhorn  ;  '  Einl.  in  das  A.  T.',  3  und  4  Ausgabe  ; 
Bertholdt,  '  Daniel ;'  also  the  commentaries  of  Kirins,  '  Commentatio 
historico-critica,'  Jena,  1828 ;  Redepenning,  1833 ;  von  Lengerke,  1835  ; 
Ewald  ;  Hitzig ;  Bunsen,  '  Gott  in  der  Geschichte,'  i  Teil,  1857,  pp. 
302,  514,  540 ;  Liicke,  '  Versuch  einer  vollstandigen  Einleitung  in  die 
Offenbarung  Johannis,'  ii.  Ann.;  Bleek,  'Einleitung';  Riehm,  'Ein- 
leitung,' ii.  292  :  Strack  in  Zockler's  '  Handbuch  der  Theolog.  Wiss.',  i. 
(1885),  164,  165,  (see  also  Herzog,  Real  Encyclopaedie,2  vii.  419); 
Schlottmann,  'Compendium  der  Alttestamentlichen  Theologie,'  1887 
and  1889  ;  Reuss.,  '  Geschichte  des  A.  T.',  1890,  pp.  592 /.;  C.  A.  Briggs, 
'  Messianic  Prophecy,"  411  /. ;  and  Driver,  '  Introd.',  p.  467. 

Among  the  defenders  of  the  authenticity  of  the  book  should  be 
mentioned  •  Liiderwald,  Die  6  ersten  Capitel  Daniels  nach  historischen 
Uriinden  gepriift  und  berichtigt,  1787 ;  Jahii,  1880 ;  Dereser,  1810 


60 

(answering  Bertholdt) ;  Pareau,  Institutio  Interpret,  v.  i. :  Royaards, 
'  Over  den  Geest  en  het  belang  van  het  Boek  Daniel,'  Hag.  1821  ;  Sack  ; 
Ackermann,  1829  ;  Hengstenberg,  1831  ;  Hiivernick  (answered  by  Droy- 
sen,  Geschichte  der  Hellenen,  vol.  ii.  p.  346) ;  Zundel,  1861  ;  Hilgenfeld, 
1863  ;  Kranichfeld,  1868  ;  Keil :  Franz  Delitzsch  in  Real  Encyclopaedic, 
(first  Edition)  vol.  iii.;  Caspari  ;  Pusey  :  Andrea,  Beweis  des  Glaubens, 
'88,  p.  241  ff. :  Diisterwald,  '  Die  Weltreiche  und  das  Gottesreich  nach 
den  Weissagungen  des  Propheten  Daniels,'  1890,  (reviewed  by  Siegfried, 
'  Theologische  Literatur  zeitung,'  10  Jan.  1891)  etc.,  etc. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that  Franz  Delitzsch,  in  the  second  edition  of 
Herzog's  '  Real  Encyclopeedie,'  vol.  vii.  pp.  469-479,  (1878)  had  greatly 
modified  his  views  regarding  the  time  when  the  book  of  Daniel  origi- 
nated.* He  was  not  inclined  to  deny  the  possibility  of  a  Maccabsean  ori- 
gin, and  even  said,  (p.  471)  that  the  book,  considered  as  an  apocalyptic 
work  of  the  Seleucidan  period,  had  more  claims  to  canonicity,  than  if 
it  were  a  product  of  the  Achaemenian  epoch  distorted  from  its  original 
form  by  later  hands. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTE  B. 

THE  UNITY  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 

The  Book  of  Daniel  must  be  regarded  as  a  unit.  Some  critics,  how- 
ever, have  believed  in  a  separate  origin  for  the  first  six  chapters. 
Thus  Sack,  Herbst  in  his  '  Einleitung  in's  A.  T.'  2  Theil,  2  Abteilung, 
pp.  104,  105,  and  Davidson  attributed  the  second  part  of  the  work  to 
Daniel,  but  regarded  the  first  six  chapters  as  an  introduction  to  the 
visions  written  by  a  later  Jew.  Eichhorn  ('  Einleitung,'  3d  and  4th  edi- 
tion,) believed  that  ch.  ii.  4  -vi.  were  written  by  one  author  and  ch.  vii.- 
xii.  with  i.-ii.  3  by  another.  The  fact  that  from  ch.  ii.  4,  through 
ch.  vii.  the  book  is  written  in  Aramaean  has  not  unnaturally  influenced 
some  scholars  to  believe  that  the  Aramaean  portions  have  a  separate  ori- 
gin from  the  other  parts  of  the  work.  Zockler,  for  example,  following 
some  of  his  predecessors,  such  as  Kranichfeld  ('  Daniel,'  p.  4).  con- 
sidered the  Aramaean  sections  as  extracts  from  a  contemporary  journal 
in  the  vernacular,  while  Driver  '  Introduction,'  482,  3,  although  seeing 
the  strong  objections  to  such  a  view,  remarks  with  some  caution  that 
the  theory  of  a  separate  origin  for  these  parts  deserves  consideration. 
Meinhold,  ' Dissertation, 'p.  38  and  '  Beitrage  zur  Erklarung  des  Buches 
Daniel,'  32,  70,  believed  that  the  Aramaean  portions  were  in  existence 
from  the  time  of  Alexander.  We  should  compare  in  this  connection 
Strack  (in  Zockler's  '  Handbuch,'  i.  165,)  who  inclines  to  this  view, 
although  admitting  that  the  book  at  present  forms  an  indivisible 
whole.  (See  also  Lenormant  '  Magie,'  Germ,  ed.,  527,  565).  This  idea 
should  be  kept  quite  distinct  from  the  more  extreme  theory  of  La- 
garde,  '  Mittheilungen,'  iv.  351  (1891),  who,  commenting  on  the  opinion 
of  J.  D.  Michaelis'  '  Orientalische  und  Exegetische  Bibliothek,'  ii.  (1772), 


61 

p.  141,  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  consisted  of  a  number  of  parts  of 
separate  origin,  remarked  that  the  bilingual  character  of  the  work  is 
an  evidence  that  it  is  a  'Bvindel  von  Flugblattern.'  (See  also  Gott. 
Gelehrte  Anzeigen,  1891,  pp.  497-520,  particularly  506-517.)  This  view 
of  Lagarde's  was  really  a  repetition  of  that  of  Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,' 
pp.  49^.,  which  is  now  generally  rejected.  (See  Bleek,  '  Einleitung,'  p. 
415,  Delitzsch,  'Real  Encyclopadie,'  vii.2  471,  Reuss  ' Geschichte,'  599, 
and  lately  Kamphausen,  •  Das  Buch  Daniel  und  die^neuere  Geschichts- 
forschung '  (1893),  p.  8.) 

No  view  that  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  the  production  of  more  than  one 
author  is  consistent  with  the  uniform  character  of  the  entire  work. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Aramaean  chapters  are  not  altogether 
pure  narrative.  Chapter  ii.  for  example,  although  narrative  in  form, 
is  devoted  to  the  interpretation  of  the  dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
and  contains,  as  shown  above,  substantially  the  same  prophecies  as 
we  find  in  the  purely  apocalyptic  chapter  vii.  in  the  second  part 
of  the  work.  It  will  suffice  to  cite  one  other  striking  point  of  agree- 
ment between  the  two  sections.  The  allusion  in  chapter  ii.  43,  to  the 
mixing  of  iron  and  clay  is  clearly  to  be  understood  of  the  alliance  men- 
tioned in  ch.  xi.  6.  17  between  the  Seleucidae  and  the  Ptolemies.  (See 
Kamphausen,  op.  cit.,p.  8.) 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  chapter  vii.,  the  beginning  of  the  sec- 
ond part,  is  certainly  as  apocalyptic  in  character  as  any  of  the  follow- 
ing sections.  Moreover,  the  natural  division  of  the  book  is  undoubtedly 
after  ch.  vi.,  so  that  if  the  difference  of  language  were  the  sign  of  a 
separate  origin  for  these  sections  we  would  expect  ch.  vii.,  the  begin- 
niug  of  the  distinctly  apocalyptic  portion  to  be  in  Hebrew,  which,  how- 
ever, is  not  the  case.  The  Aramaean  seventh  chapter  belongs  as 
completely  to  the  following  Hebrew  apocalyptic  parts  as  the  Hebrew 
first  chapter  is  essentially  part  of  the  following  Aramaean  narrative 
sections.  (In  this  connection  see  Driver,  'Introduction,'  482.)  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  complete  interdependence  of  all  the  chap- 
ters is  such  that  the  entire  book  must  be  regarded  as  the  work  of  a 
single  author. 

Carious  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  the  sudden  change  of 
language  in  ii.  4.  Some  commentators  thought  that  Aramaean  was  the 
vernacular  of  Babylonia  and  was  consequently  employed  as  the  lan- 
guage of  the  parts  relating  to  that  country.  (So  Kliefoth,  1868,  ;  Dan.', 
p.  44,  and  Keil,  '  Dan.',  14.)  Such  a  view  is  of  course  no  longer  tenable, 
as  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  now  show  that  the  Babylonian  language 
was  in  use  until  quite  a  late  date.  The  latest  connected  inscription 
is  that  of  Antiochus-Soter  (280-260  B.  C.),  published  VR.  66,  and 
translated  by  Peiser  in  Schrader's  '  Keilinschriftl.  Bibl.',  iii.  2,  136. 
Noldeke's  theory  advanced  in  his  brochure  -  Die  Semitischen  Sprachen,' 
pp.  41.$%  that  the  Assyrian  language  died  as  a  spoken  idiom  shortly 
before  the  fall  of  Nineveh  seems  entirely  unfounded.  Gutbrod  refers 
in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  Assyr.  vi.  27,  to  a  brick  on  which  was  engraved 
in  Aramaean  and  Greek  letters  a  proper  name  of  distinctly  Assyrian 


62 

character  :  f"UW^T"lfc$  —  'A.defiva6tv&%rts.  (He  was  evidently  alluding 
to  one  of  the  bricks  of  Tello  of  which  there  are  some  examples  in  the 
museums  of  Paris  and  Berlin.  As  Dr.  Bezold ,  editor  of  the  Zeitschrift, 
remarked  in  a  foot-note,  this  inscription  has  been  treated  by  De  Vogue 
and  Schrader  as  well  as  in  the  'Corpus  Inscriptionum  Semiticarum.' 
See  Schrader  '  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,'  iii.  2,  p.  142,  n.  1.)  When 
it  is  remembered  that  a  living  language  exercises  the  greatest  possible 
influence  on  the  formation  of  proper  names,  this  brick,  which  is  unfor- 
tunately undated,  would  seem  to  be  an  evidence,  as  Gutbrod  thinks, 
that  Assyrian  may  have  been  spoken  until  Hellenic  times.  It  is  there- 
fore of  course  clear  that  the  Aramaean  could  certainly  not  have  been 
the  vernacular  of  Babylonia  even  as  late  as  the  time  of  the  author  of 
Daniel.  As  a  literary  language,  indeed,  Assyrian  may  well  have  sur- 
vived as  late  as  the  second  century  after  Christ.  (See  Gutbrod,  op.  cit., 
p.  29Jf.) 

With  regard  to  the  Book  of  Daniel,  it  is  equally  unconvincing  to  sup- 
pose with  Merx  that  Aramaean,  as  the  popular  tongue  of  the  period 
when  the  book  was  written,  was  used  for  the  narrative  parts,  and 
Hebrew,  as  the  more  learned  language,  for  the  philosophical  portions  ; 
because  ch.  i.  which  is  just  as  much  in  the  narrative  style  as  the  fol- 
lowing Aramaean  sections,  is  in  Hebrew,  while  the  distinctly  apoca- 
lyptic ch.  vii.  is  in  Aramaean. 

A  third  supposition  that  the  bilingual  character  of  the  work  points  to 
a  time  when  both  Hebrew  and  Aramaean  were  used  indifferently  is  cer- 
tainly strange,  as  it  is  very  questionable  if  two  languages  can  ever  be 
used  quite  indifferently.  A  hybrid  connected  work  in  two  idioms 
would  be  a  monstrosity.  (For  this  opinion  cf.  Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,' 
p.  15,  and  later  Havernick.  Franz  Delitzsch,  '  Real  Encyclopaedic,'  iii. 
272,  and  vii.2  470,  followed  substantially  the  same  theory,  considering 
the  change  to  be  due  to  the  Aramaic  answer  of  the  Chaldees  in  ch.  ii.  4.) 

Huetius  ('  Demonstr.  Evang.',  472,  quoted  by  Bertholdt,  'Daniel,' 
p.  51),  believed  that  the  entire  work  was  written  originally  in  Aramaean 
and  subsequently  translated  into  Hebrew.  In  the  troubled  Seleucidan 
period,  he  thought  that  the  Hebrew  edition  was  partly  destroyed  and 
the  missing  portions  supplied  from  the  original  Aramaean.  This  theory, 
although  very  ingenious,  does  not,  however,  commend  itself  as  the 
most  satisfactory  explanation. 

Bertholdt,  '  Daniel,'  v.  2,  in  commenting  on  Huetius'  view  has  hit 
upon  what  seems  the  best  solution  of  the  problem,  but  unfortunately 
did  not  adopt  it.  He  remarked,  with  perhaps  a  touch  of  sarcasm,  that 
it  had  not  yet  occurred  to  any  one  to  consider  the  Aramaean  text  as  a 
translation  and  the  Hebrew  as  the  original.  In  view  of  the  apparent 
unity  of  the  entire  work,  which  Bertholdt  did  not  recognize,  no  other 
explanation  of  the  bilingual  character  of  the  book  seems  possible. 
The  book  was  probably  written  originally  at  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  all  in  Hebrew  :  but  for  the  convenience  of  the  general  reader 
whose  language  was  Aramaean,  a  translation,  possibly  from  the  same 
pen  as  the  original,  was  made  into  the  Aramaean  vernacular.  We  must 


63 

suppose,  then,  that  certain  parts^of  the  original  Hebrew  manuscript 
being  lost,  the  missing  places  were  supplied  from  the  current  Aramaean 
translation.  This  theory,  which  is  that  of  Lenormant,  '  Magie  '  (Germ, 
ed.,  p.  527),  has  been  also  adopted  by  Bevan,  the  latest  commentator 
on  our  book,  in  his  ' Daniel'  (1892) pp.  27 ff.  I  cannot  agree  in  this  con- 
nection with  Kainphausen,  op.  cit.  14,  note,  who  rejects  this  hypothesis 
on  the  ground  that  the  author  of  Daniel  evidently  fell  into  the  error  of 
regarding  '  Chaldsean '  as  the  language  of  Babylonia,  and  consequently 
deliberately  wrote  in  it  those  sections  applying  more  especially  to 
Babylon,  reserving  the  Hebrew  for  the  more  solemn  prophetic  parts. 
Kainphausen  does  not  explain,  however,  any  more  than  his  predecessors 
in  this  opinion,  why  the  apocalyptic  Aramaic  chapter  vii.,  which  is 
indivisible  from  the  succeeding  prophetic  Hebrew  portions,  is  in  Ara- 
maean instead  of  in  Hebrew. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTE  C. 

The  most  important  references  to  Belsarugur  in  the  published  con- 
tracts are  the  following  : — 

(a)  Strassmaier,  '  Nabonidus,'  184,  where  mention  is  made  of  Nabti- 
•itkin-axi  sipiri  sa  Belsarugur  mar  sarri.     '  N.  the  scribe  of  B.  the  son 
of  the  king.'    Dated  25th  Nisan,  fifth  year  of  Nabonidus.     Translation 
'  Records  of  the  Past,'  New  Series,  iii.  124^. 

(b)  Boscawen,  '  Babylonian  and  Oriental  Eecord,'  ii.  17,  18  ;  Revillout 
'  Obligations  en  Droits  Egyptiens,'  p.  895.  .  .  .  Strassmaier,  Congres  de 
Leide,'  no.  80,  Tablet  S  +  329,  79,  11,  17,  mention  of  the  same  person,  and 
of  Nabu-$abit-qdte,  the  major-domo  of  Belsarugur,  the  son  of  the  king. 
Dated  seventh  year  of    Nabonidus.      Boscawen  concludes  from  the 
mention  of  these  especial  servants  of  the  king's  son  so  early  in  his 
father's  reign  that  the  prince  must  have  been  born  before  the  accession 
of  Nabonidus,  a  conclusion  hardly  warranted  by  the  premises,  as  the 
exact  age  when  a  king's  son  had  his  separate  household  is  not  known. 

It  should  be  remarked,  however,  that  if  Belsarugur  were  in  command 
of  the  army  in  the  seventeenth  and  last  year  of  his  fathers  reign,  the 
prince  was  probably  older  than  seventeen.  Compare  also  in  this  con- 
nection the  statement  recorded  below,  that  in  the  first  year  of  Nabonidus 
a  plot  of  ground  was  sold  to  a  servant  of  Belsarugur  for  his  lord. 

(c)  Strassmaier  *  Nabonidus,'  581.   Translation  :  '  Records  of  the  Past,' 
iii.   124-125.  mention  of  Nabu-gdbit-qdte  the  steward  of  Belsarugur  the 
'  mar  sarri.''    Dated  eleventh  year  of  Nabonidus. 

(d)  Strassmaier,  •  Nabonidus,'  688.    Translation,  '  Records  of  the  Past,' 
iii.  124,— allusion  to  same  official.     Dated  sixth  year. 

(e)  Strassmaier,  '  Nabonidus,'  662.     Translation  by  Zehnpfund   '  Bei- 
trdgezur  Assyr.',  i.  527,  no.  25,  a  list  of  garments.     5  gubdt  esirti  ana 
xubd  sa  kurummate  sarri  Belsarugur.     Dated  twelfth  year.     This  is  the 
only  allusion  to  the  king's  son  known  to  me,  where  he  is  not  especially 
called  mar  sarri.     The  omission  of  the  title  in  tlrs  case  was  probably 
because  the  mention  of  the  royal  steward  shows  who  is  meant. 


64 

(f)  Boscawen,  '  Babylonian  and  Oriental  Record,'  ii.  17,  n.  1.  Record 
of  an  offering  made  by  the  son  of  the  king  in  Ebarra.  Dated  seventh 
year. 

Nabu-gdbit-qdte  (Nebo  seizes  the  hands)  was  the  name  of  the  major- 
domo  of  Neriglissar  (Nebuchadnezzar,  34,  2/6,  1,  5,  see  Strassmaier, 
'  Alphabetisches  Worterverzeichniss,')  and  of  his  son  Labasi-Marduk 
(Neriglissar,  2,  10/6,  2.  See  '  Bab.  and  Or.  Record,'  ii.  44,  48).  The 
steward  of  Belsarugur  may  be  the  same  person. 

To  the  contracts  just  mentioned  should  be  added  the  two  references 
to  Belsarugur  treated  of  by  Pinches,  Independent,  Aug.  15,  1889  : 

(a)  Sale  of  a  plot  of  ground  by  Marduk-eriba  to  Bel-rgsua,  servant  of 
BeUaruqur  son  of  the  king.     Dated  26  VoAdar,  first  year  of  Nabonidus. 

(b)  The  record  of  a  small  tablet  from  Sippar  that  Esaggila-rdmat, 
daughter  of  the  king  (Nabonidus),  paid  her  tithe  to  Samas  through  Bel- 
sarugur.     Dated  5th  of  Ab,  seventeenth  (last)  year  of  Nabonidus.     This 
payment  took  place  in  the  month  before  Sippar  was  captured  by  the 
Persians.     Pinches,  op.  eit.,  believing  that  it  had  already  been  taken 
by  the  forces  of  Cyrus,  tries  to  show  that  the  city  must  have  been 
retaken  by  the  Babylonians.     Sippar  was  not  taken  by  the  Persians 
until  the  14th  of  Tammuz  of  Nabonidus'  17th  year. 

The  attempt  of  Boscawen,  Transactions  of  the  Society  for  Biblical 
Archaeology,  ii.  27,  28,  (followed  by  Andrea,  Beweis  des  Glaubens,  1888, 
250,  Cheyne,  '  Encycl.  Britannica.'  vi.  803,  etc.,)  to  identify  Marduk- 
saruqur,  whose  fifth  year  he  thought  he  had  discovered  on  a  tablet,  with 
Belsaru$ur  is  unsuccessful.  The  contract  to  which  the  reference  was 
made  belongs  to  the  time  of  Neriglissar.  See  Tiele  '  Geschichte,'  476, 
Strassmaier,  'Congres  de  Leide,'  n.  115,  p.  586. 


APPENDIX  I. 


THE  CYRUS  CYLINDER  AND  THE  ANNALS  OF 
NABONIDUS. 

The  Cyrus  Cylinder  is  written  on  a  barrel  cylinder  of  unbaked  clay, 
nine  inches  long,  three  and  a  quarter  inches  in  end  diameter  and  four 
and  one-eighth  inches  in  middle  diameter.  It  was  reported  by  Hor- 
muzd  Rassam  in  the  Victoria  Institute,  Febr.  2nd,  1881,  as  being  the 
official  account  of  the  capture  of  Babylon. 

The  text  of  the  inscription  was  published  in  1880  by  Pinches  on  the 
35th  plate  of  the  fifth  volume  of  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson's  Cuneiform 
Inscriptions  of  Western  Asia,  and  lately  in  Abel-Winckler'sKeilschrift- 
texte,  Berlin,  1890,  pp.  44  ff.  The  first  treatment  of  the  inscription,  em- 
bracing transliteration,  translation  and  commentary,  was  published  by 
Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  XII2,  70-97, 
1880.  Since  that  time  translations  have  been  given  by  Sayce,  '  Fresh 
Light  from  the  Ancient  Monuments,'  pp.  172  ff.;  Floigl, '  Cyrus  und  Her- 
odot,'  1881,  which  is  based  on  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson's  work  ;  E.  Babelon, 
Les  inscriptions  cuneiformes  relatives  a  la  prise  de  Babylone  par 
Cyrus.  Paris,  1881 ;  Halevy,  Melanges — '  Cyrus  et  le  Retour  de  la 
Captivite,'  pp.  4ff.;  Tiele,  l  Ass3Trische  und  Babylonische  Geschichte,' 
p.  470  ff.  a  paraphrase  ;  Hommel,  Greschichte  Assyriens  und  Babylo- 
niens  ;'  Eberhard  Schrader,  '  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,' III,  pt.  2, 
pp.  120-127,  a  transliteration  and  translation  based  on  a  collation  from  a 
photograph  ;  Friedrich  Delitzsch  in  Miirdter's  Greschichte  Babyloniens 
und  Assyriens,  1891,  pp.  259  ff.  a  paraphrase  ;  0.  E.  Hagen,  '  Beitrage 
zur  Assyriologie,'  II,  pp.  205  ff.  1891,  transliteration,  translation  and 
commentary  from  an  entirely  new  collation,  and  finally  Sayce,  Records 
of  the  Past,  Y,  new  series,  pp.  144  ff.,  a  new  translation.  A  translitera- 
tion of  the  cuneiform  text  is  given  in  Lyon's  Manual,  pp.  39-41. 

The  Annals  of  Xabonidus  are  engraved  upon  a  gray  fragment  of 
unbaked  clay  in  double  columns  front  and  back.  The  tablet,  as  we 
have  it,  is  about  four  inches  high  and  three  and  a  half  inches  in 
breadth.  For  the  exact  measurements  see  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie, 
II,  206.  Notice  of  the  inscription  was  given  by  T.  Gr.  Pinches  in  1880, 
in  the  Transactions  of  the  Society  for  Biblical  Archaeology,  pp.  139, 
17(:!.  (See  also  Athen^um,  1881,  p.  215,  an  article  by  Sir  Henry  Raw- 
linson who  considered  it  the  Annals  of  Cyrus,  and  Sayce,  Academy, 
March  13,  1881,  XVII,  198). 
9 


66 

The  text  of  the  document  is  given  by  Winckler,  Untersuchungen 
zur  altorientalischen  Greschichte,  1889,  p.  154,  and  again  lately  from 
a  fresh  collation  by  O.  E.  Hagen,  1891,  op.  cit.  pp.  248  ff.  whose  copy 
differs  but  very  slightly  from  that  of  Winckler. 

The  first  translation  of  the  inscription  which  was  made  by  Mr. 
Pinches,  appeared  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Society  for  Biblical 
Archaeology,  VII,  1882,  pp.  153-169,  and  was  accompanied  by  an 
introduction,  transcription  and  notes.  The  same  scholar  submitted 
lines  1-4  of  column  II  to  a  new  collation,  the  result  of  which  appeared 
in  the  Proceedings  of  the  same  Society,  V,  10. 

Translations  and  paraphrases  of  the  document  have  been  given  by 
the  authors  mentioned  above  as  having  presented  translations,  etc.  of 
the  Cyrus  Cylinder,  the  most  important  being  that  of  0.  E.  Hagen, 
Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie,  II,  215  ff.,  with  full  commentary. 

The  greater  part  of  the  following  translation  arid  commentary,  which 
is  not  based  on  a  fresh  collation,  was  made  before  Dr.  Hagen 's  excel- 
lent work  appeared.  As  his  essay  depends,  however,  on  a  new  and 
careful  collation  of  both  documents,  I  have  had  no  hesitation  in  adopt- 
ing in  many  passages  his  readings  and  in  some  cases  the  translations 
suggested  by  him.  In  every  such  instance  due  credit  has  been  given 
to  the  source  from  which  I  drew. 


THE   CYRUS   CYLINDER. 

DIVIDED   TRANSLITERATION. 

1 

[um-ma-]ni-su 

2 

(ki)-ib-ra-tim 

3       

-(-ka  gal)  ma-tu1-!!  is-sak-na  ana  e-nu-tu  ma-ti-su 

4  si (ta-am-)si-li 

u-sa-as-ki-na  ci-ru-su-un 

5  ta-am-si-li  E-saggil  i-te-(ni-ip-pu-us2) ana  Uri  u  si- 

it-ta-a-tim  ma-xa-za 

6  pa-ra-a§  la  si-ma-a-ti-su-nu  ta3 li  u-mi-sa-am-ma  id-di-ni-ib-bu- 

ub  li  ana  (na)4-ak-ri-tim 

7  sat-tuk-ku    u-sab-ti-li  u-ad5-di-(ma) (is-)tak-ka-an    ki-rib    ma- 
xa-za  pa-la-xa  Marduk  sar  ilani  (sa-)6qi-se  a-su-us-su 

1  V  R.  and  Winckler  Keilschrifttexte  lu.    Hagen,  Beitrage  II,  208,  reads  lu. 

2  So  Hagen,  op.  cit.  208. 

3  ta=istu  (?). 

•»  So  Strassmaier  and  Pinches,  cf .  Hagen  op.  cit. 

s  In  V  R.  and  Winckler's  Keilschrifttexte,  la.    Hagen  corrects  to  ad. 

6  Thus  Hagen's  collation. 


67 

li-mu-ut-ti  ali-su  (i-te)-ni7-ip-pu-(us)  u-mi-sa-ain-ma. .  .(«ise)-su  ina      8 
ab-sa-a-ni  la  ta-ap-su-ux-tim  u-xal-li-iq  kul-lat-si-in. 

A-na  ta-zi-im-ti-si-na  Bel  ilani  ez-zi-is  i-gu-ug-(ma) ki-su-ur-su-      9 

un  ilani  a-si-ib  lib-bi-su-nu  e-zi-bu  ad-ma-an-su-uri 

ina  ug-ga-ti  sa  u-se-ri-bi  a-na  ki-rib  Babili8.     Marduk  ina  si9 10 

li  sa-ax-ra  a-na  nap-xar  da-ad-mi  sa  in»na-du-u  su-bat-su-un 

li  nise  matSu-me-ri  u  Akkadi  sa  i-mu-u  sa-lam-ta-as  u-sa-ax-xi-ir    11 

ka si   ir-ta-si  ta-a-a-ra.     Kul-lat  ma-ta-a-ta  ka-li-si-na  i-xi-it 

ib-ri-e-su 

iS-te-'-e-ma  ina-al-ki  i-sa-ru  bi-bil  lib-bi  sa  it-ta-ma-ax  qa-tu-us-su.    12 

mKu-ra-as   sar    ruAn-sa-an    it-ta-bi    ni-bi-it-su    a-na   ma-li-ku-tim 

kul-la-ta  nap-xar  i-zak-ra  su-(um-su).10 

matQu-ti-i  gi-mir  Um-man-man-da  u-ka-an-ni-sa  a-na  se-pi-su  nise     13 

£al-mat  qaqqadi  sa  u-sa-ak-si-du  qa-ta-a-su 

i-na  ki-it-tim  u  ini-sa-ru  is-te-ni-'-e-si-na-a-tim.     Marduk  belu  rabu     14 

ta-ru-u  nise-su  ip-se-e-ti-sa  dam11-qa-a-ta  u  lib-ba-su  i-sa-ra  xa-di-is 

ip-pa-li-is 

a-na  ali-su   Babili12   a-la-ak-su   iq-bi  u-sa-ag-bi-it-su-ma  xar-ra-nu     15 

Babili13  ki-ma  ib-ri  li  tap-pi-e  it-tal-la-ka  i-da-a-su. 

Um-ma-ni-su  rap-sa-a-tim  sa  ki-nia  me-e  nari  la  u-ta-ad-du-u  ni-ba-    16 

su-un  kakke-su-nu  ga-an-du-ma  i-sa-ad-di-xa  i-da-a-su 

ba-lu   qab-li  u  ta-xa-zi   u-se-ri-ba-as  ki-rib  Babili8  al-su   Babili12    17 

i-ti-ir  ina   sap-sa-qi.    mNabu-na'id  sarri  la  pa-li-xi-su  u-ma-al-la-a 

qa-tu-us-su 

nise  Babili13  ka-li-su-nu  nap-xar  matSu-me-ri  u  Akkadi  ru-bi-e  u     18 

sak-kan-nak-ka  sa-pal-su  ik-mi-sa  u-na-as-si-qu  se-pu-us-su  ix-du-u 

a-na  sarru-u-ti-su  im-mi-ru  pa-nu-us-su-un 

be-lu  sa  i-na  tu-kul-ti-sa  u-bal-li-tu  mi-tu-ta-an  i-na  pu-ta-qu  u  pa-     19 

ki-e  ig-mi-lu  kul-la-ta-an  ta-bi-is  ik-ta-ar-ra-bu-su  is-tam-ma-ru  zi- 

ki-ir-su. 

A-na-ku  mKu-ra-as  sar  kis-sat  sarru  rabu  sarru  dan-nu  sar  Babili13    20 

sar  matSu-ine-ri  u  Ak-ka-di-i  sar  kib-ra-a-ti  ir-bi-it-tim  ; 

mar  mKa-am-bu-zi-ia  sarru  rabu  sar  <^An-sa-an  mar  mari  mKu-    21 

ra-as  sarru  rabu  sar  ^An-sa-an  lip-pal-pal  mSi-is-pi-is  sarru  rabu 

sar  "fAn-sa-an  ; 

zeru  da-ru-u  sa  sarru-u-tu  sa  Bel  u  Nabu  ir-a-mu  pa-la-a-su  a-na    22 

tu-ub    lib-bi-su-nu    ix-si-xa   (sarru)-ut-su.     E-nu-ma   (a-na   ki-rib) 

Babili13  e-ru-bu  sa-li-mi-is 

~  1  adopt  Hagen's  correction  to  m.    The  kak  of  the  original  may  have  been  a 
mistake  of  the  scribe. 
»  Su-an-na-ki. 

9  So  V  R.  and  Winckler.    Hagen  reads  ti. 

10  Traces  not  clear. 

11  So  Winckler.    V  R.  has  '  nin-?u.' 
Ka-dingir-me5-ki. 

is  Tin-tir-ki. 


68 

23  i-na  ul-gi  u  ri-sa-a-tim  i-na  ekalli  ma-al-ki  ar-ma-a  su-bat  be-lu-tim 

Marduk  belu  rabu  lib-bi  ri-it-pa-su  sa  mare  Babili13  u an-ni-ma 

u-mi-sam  a-se-'-a  pa-la-ax-14su. 

24  Um-ma-ni-ia  rap-sa-a-tim  i-na  ki-rib  Babili13  i-sa-ad-di-xa  su-ul-ma- 
nis.  Nap-xar  (Su-me-ri)  u  Akkadi  zeru  rabu  (na-ak)-ri-tim  ul  u-sar-si 

25  ki-rib  Babili15  u  kul-lat  ma-xa-zi-su  i-na  sa-li-im-tim  as-te-'-e  mare 

Babili13 ki  ma-la  lib-(bi) ma  ab-sa-a-ni  la  si-ma-ti-su-nu  &u- 

bat-su-nu 

26  an-xu-ut-su-un    u-pa-as-si-xa    u-sa-ap-ti-ir    sa-ar-ba-su-nu.     A-na 
ip-se-e-ti16. . .  .Marduk  belu  rabu-u  ix-di-e-ma 

27  a-na  ia-a-ti  mKu-ra-as  sarru  pa-li-ix-su  u  Ka-am-bu-zi-ia  mar  §i-it 
lib-bi ap. . .  -17  um-ma-ni-ia 

28  da-am-qi-is  ik-ru-ub-ma  i-na  Sa-lim-tim  ma-xar-sa  ta-bi-is  ni-it-ta- 
['-du  iluti-su(?)]18  §ir-ti. 

29  Nap-xar  sarri  a-si-ib  parakke  sa  ka-li-is  kib-ra-a-ta  is-tu  tam-tim 
e-li-tim  a-di  tam-tim  sap-li-tim   a-si-ib ....  sarrani  mat  A-xar-ri-i 
a-si-ib  kus-ta-ri  ka-li-su-un 

30  bi-lat-su-nu   ka-bi-it-tim  u-bi-lu-nim-ma  ki-ir-ba  Babili8  u-na-as- 
si-qu  se-pu-u-a.     Is-tu a-di  Assur  u  Susinakkil9 

31  A-ga-ne-w  matEs-nu-nak  aiZa-am-ba-an  aiMe-tur-nu  Dur-iluki  a-di 
pa-at  matQu-ti-i  ma-xa-(za  sa  e-bir20)-ti  narDiglat21  sa  is-tu  ap-na-ma 
na-du-u  su-bat-su-un 

32  ilani  a-si-ib  lib-bi-su-nu  a-na  as-ri-su-nu  u-tir-ma  u-sar-ma-a  su-bat 
dara22-a-ta.     Kul-lat  nise-su-nu  u-pa-ax-xi-ra-am-ma  u-te-ir  da-ad- 
mi-su-un 

33  u  ilani  m&tSu-me-ri  u  Akkadi  sa  Nabu-na'id  a-na  ug-ga-tim  bel 
ilani  u-se-ri-bi  a-na  ki-rib  Babili8  i-na  qi-bi-ti  Marduk  belu  rabu 
i-na  sa-li-im-tim 

34  i-na  mas-ta-ki-su-un  u-se-si-ib  su-ba-at  tu-ub  lib-bi.    Kul-la-ta  ilani 
sa  u-se-ri-bi  a-na  ki-ir-bi  ma-xa-ze-su-un 

35  u-mi-sa-am  ma-xar  Bel  u  Nabu  sa  a-ra-ku  ume-ia  li-ta-mu-u  lit-tas- 
ka-ru   a-ma-a-ta  du-un-qi-ia  u  a-na  Marduk  beli-ia  li-iq-bu-u  sa 
mKu-ra-as  sarru  pa-li-xi-ka  u  mKa-am-bu-zi-ia  mari-su 

36  da su-nu  lu-u (matati)  ka-li-si-na  su-ub-ti  ni-ix-tim  u-se- 
si-ib 

.'.".  .'.".V.'(US)  TUR-XU-ME§  'u'  TU-KIL-XIJ-ME§. 

38     

(ad-ma-)  na-su  du-un-nu-nim  as-te-'-ma 

"  Evidently  ax-  — cf .  Hagen  op.  cit.,  210.    V  R.  has  tu. 

is  Ka-dingir-ra-ki. 

IB  Hagen  op.  cit.  p.  212  reads  :  a-na  ib-se-e-ti-(ia  dam-qa-tim?) 

17  Hagen:  '  u  a-na  na-ap-xar.' 

is  So  Hagen  and  the  most  probable  reading. 

«  See  Beitriige  II.  233.  Suggestion  of  Delitzsch. 

20  This  is  the  most  probable  restoration  of  the  text.    See  Beitriige,  II,  p.  212. 

21  BAR.    TIK.    KAR. 
2JDA.     ER. 


39 

li  si-pi-ir-su 
40 

.  .su-unBabili8 

41 

si-in 

42 

si-na 

43 

bit 

. .  -tim 
44 

, 45 

. .   (dara)-a-tim22 


THE  CYRUS  CYLINDER. 

CONSECUTIVE  TRANSLITERATION. 
1 

umnianisu  (?) 

2 

kibratim 

3 

matu  issakna  ana  enutu  matisu4  si 

tamsili  usaskina  cirusun5  tamsili  Esaggil  etenippus 

ana  Uri  u  sittatim  maxaza  6para§  la  simatisunu  ta li 

umisamma  iddinibbub  ana  nakritim  7sattukku  usabtili  u'addima 

istakkan  qirib  maxaze,  palaxa  Marduk  sar  ilani  saqise 

asussu  8limutti  alisu  etenippus  umisamma (nise)su  ina  absani 

la  tapsuxtirn  uxalliq  kullatsin.  9Ana  tazimtisina  Bel  ilani  ezzis 

egug(ma) kisursun,  ilani  asib  libbisun  ezibu  admansun  10ina 

uggati  sa  useribi  ana  qirib  Babili.  Marduk  ina  si li  saxra  ana 

napxar  dadmi  sa  innadu  subatsun  nil  nise  matSumeri  u  Akkadi  sa  emu 
salamtas  usaxxir  ka. . .  .si  irtasi  tara. 

Kullat  matata  kalisina  ixit  ibresu  12iste'ma  malki  isaru  bibil  libbi 
sa  ittamax  qatussu.  Kuras  sar  ai  Ansan  ittabi  nibitsu,  ana  malikutim 
kullata  napxar  izakra  sumsu.  13matQuti  gimir  Uinmanmanda  ukan- 
nisa  ana  sepisu,  nise  galmat  qaqqadi  sa  usaksidu  qatasu  14ina  kittim 
u  misaru  isteni  'esinatim. 

Marduk  belu  rabu  tarii  nisesu  ipsetisa  damqata  li  libbasu  isara  xadis 
ippalis  15ana  alisu  Babili  alaksu  iqbi  usagbitsuma,  xarranu  Babili  kima 
ibri  u  tappe  ittalaka  idasu.  16Ummanisu  rapsatim  sa  kima  me  nari  la 
utaddu  nibasun,  kakkesunu  cftnduma  isaddixa  idasu  17balu  qabli  u 
taxazi  useribas  qirib  Babili,  alsu  Babili  etir  ina  sapsaqi.  Nabuna'id 
sarri  la  palixisu  umala  qatussu. 

18Nise  Babili  kalisunu  napxar  matSumeri  u  Akkadi,  rube  u  sakkan- 
nakka  sapalsu  ikmisa,  unassiqu  sepussu,  ixdu  ana  sarrutisu,  immiru 
panussun.  19Belu  sa  ina  tukultisa  uballitu  mitutan  ina  putaqu  u 
pake  igmilu  kullatan  tabis  iktarrabusu  istammaru  zikirsu. 


THE  CYRUS  CYLINDER. 

TRANSLATION. 
1 

his  troops  (?) 

2 

regions 3a  weak  one 

was  appointed  to  the  government  of  his  land 4a  similar  one 

he  caused  to  be  over  them,  5like  Esaggil  he  made unto  Ur  and 

the  rest  of  the  cities  6a  command  unbefitting  them daily  he  planned 

in  enmity  7he  allowed  the  regular  offering  to  cease.  He  appointed 

was  done  in  the  cities,  as  for  the  veneration  for  Marduk, 

king  of  the  gods,  he  destroyed  its 8evil  against  his  city  he  did 

daily..  his  (people)  under  a  yoke  which  gave  them  no  rest  he 

ruined  all  of  them.  9At  their  laments  the  lord  of  the  gods  was  furi- 
ously wroth their  side.  The  gods  dwelling  in  the  midst  of 

them  left  their  abodes  10in  anger  that  he  had  caused  (strange  deities)  to 

enter  into  Babylon.  Marduk  in turned  (?)  to  all  the  dwellings 

whose  abode  was  established  nand  the  people  of  Surner  and  Akkad 
who  resembled  corpses*  he  turned he  granted  mercy. 

Through  all  the*  lands  altogether  he  looked,  he  saw  him,  and  12sought 
the  righteous  prince,  the  favourite  of  his  heart,  whose  hand  he  took. 
Cyrus  king  of  Ansan,  he  called  by  name,  to  the  kingdom  of  every- 
thing created  he  appointed  him.  13Qutu,  the  entire  tribe  of  the  Um- 
nian  Manda  he  made  bow  at  his  feet ;  as  for  the  people  of  the  dark 
heads  whom  he  (Marduk)  caused  his  (Cyrus')  hands  to  conquer,  14in 
justice  and  right  he  cared  for  them. 

Marduk  the  great  Lord,  merciful  (?)  to  his  people,  looked  with  pleas- 
ure on  his  pious  works  and  upright  heart,  15unto  his  city  Babylon 
he  commanded  him  to  go,  he  caused  him  to  take  the  road  to  Baby- 
lon going  by  his  side  as  a  friend  and  companion.  16His  extensive 
army,  the  number  of  which  like  the  waters  of  a  river  cannot  be  known, 
with  weapons  girded  on,  proceeded  beside  him,  17without  strife  and 
battle  he  let  him  enter  into  Babylon,  he  spared  his  city  Babylon  in  (its) 
calamity.  Nabonidus,  the  king,  who  reverenced  him  not,  he  delivered 
into  his  hand.  18A11  the  people  of  Babylon,  all  Sumer  and  Akkad, 
lords  and  governors  bowed  before  him,  kissed  his  feet,  rejoiced  at  his 
coming  to  the  throne,  their  faces  were  happy.  19The  Lord,  who  by 
his  power  brings  the  dead  to  life,  who  is  universally  benevolent  with 
care  and  protection,  they  blessed  joyously,  reverencing  his  name. 

*  i.  e.  might  as  well  be  dead. 


72 

20Anaku  Kuras,  sar  kissat,  sarru  rabu,  sarru  dannu,  sar  Babili 
§ar  matSumeri  u  Akkadi  sar  kibrati  erbittim  21mar  Kambuziya,  sarru 
rabu,  sar  aiAnsan,  mar  mari  Kuras,  sarru  rabu,  sar  aiAnsan,  lippalpal 
Sispis,  sarru  rabu,  sar  aiAnsan,  22zeru  daru  sa  sarruti  sa  Bel  u  Nabu 
iramu  palasu  ana  tub  libbisunu  ixsixa  (sarrut)su.  Enuma  (ana  qirib) 
Babili  erubu  salimis,  23ina  ulgi  u  risatim,  ina  ekalli  malki  arma  subat 
belutim,  Marduk  belu  rabu  libbi  ritpasu  sa  mare  Babili  ii....annima 
umisam  ase'a  palaxsu.  24Ummanij^a  rapsatim  ina  qirib  Babili  isaddixa 
sulmanis.  Napxar  (Sumeri)  u  Akkadi  zeru  rabu  (nak)ritim  ul  usarsi, 

25qirib  Babili  u  kullat  maxazesu  ina  salimtim  aste'  mare  Babili 

ki  mala  lib(bi) ma  absani  la  simatisunu  subatsunu  26anxutsunu 

upassixa  usaptir  sarbasunu. 

Ana  epseti. . .  .Marduk  belu  rabu  ixdema,  27ana  iati  Kuras,  sarru 

palixsu  li  Kambuziya  mar  c.it  libbi  (u  ana  napxar)  ummaniya,  28dam- 
qis  ikrubma,  ina  salimtim  maxarsa  tabis  nitta'  (du  ilutisu  ?)  girti. 

29Napxar  sarri  asib  parakke,  sa  kalis  kibrata,  istu  tamtim  elitim 
adi  tamtim  saplitim,  asib sarrani  mat  Axarri  asib  kustari  kali- 
sun,  30bilatsunu  kabittim  ubilunimma  qirba  Babili  unassiqu  sepua. 

Istu adi  Assur  u  Susinak,  31Agane,  matEsnunak  aiZamban 

aiMeturnu,  Durilu  adi  pat  matQuti,  maxaza  (sa  ebir)ti  n&rDiqlat  sa 
istu  apnama  nadu  subatsun,  32ilani  asib  libbisunu  ana  asrisun  utirnia, 
usarma  subat  darata.  Kullat  nisesunu  upaxxiramma,  utir  dadmesun, 
33ii  ilani  matSumeri  u  Akkadi  sa  Nabuna'id  ana  uggatiui  bel  ilani  uSeri- 
bi  ana  qirib  Babili,  ina  qibiti  Marduk  belu  rabu  ina  salimtim  34ina 
mastakisunu  usesib,  subat  tub  libbi.  Kullata  ilani  sa  useribi  ana  qirbi 
maxazesun  35umisam  maxar  Bel  u  Nabu  sa  araku  umea  litamu,  littas- 
karii  amata  dunqiya  u  ana  Marduk  beliya  liqbu  sa  Kuras  sarru  palixika 

u  Kambuziya  marisu  36da sunu  lu matati  kalisina  subti 

nixtim  usesib37 

US.  TUR.  XU.  MES  u  TU.  KIL.  XU.  MES. 

(For  the  broken  traces  of  the  remaining  verses  see  the  Divided 
Transliteration.) 


73 

20I  am  Cyrus,  the  king  of  hosts,^the  great  king,  the  mighty  king,  the 
king  of  Babylon,  the  king  of  Sumer  and  Akkad.  king  of  the  four 
regions,  21son  of  Cambyses,  the  great  king,  king  of  Ansan  ;  grandson  of 
Cyrus  the  great  king,  king  of  Ansan  ;  great-grand-son  of  Teispis,  the 
great  king,  king  of  Ansan,  22of  everlasting  royal  seed,  whose  government 
Bel  and  Xebo  love,  whose  rule  they  desire  as  necessary  to  their  happi- 
ness. 

When  into  the  city  of  Babylon  I  entered  in  friendship,  23with  joy 
and  gladness  I  established  my  lordly  dwelling  in  the  royal  palace,  Mar- 
duk.  the  great  lord,  made  favourable  to  me  the  generous  heart  of  the  sons 
of  Babylon,  daily  I  cared  for  his  worship.  24My  extensive  army  pro- 
ceeded peacefully  into  the  midst  of  Babylon.  All  Sumer  and  Akkad, 
the  noble  race,  I  permitted  to  have  no  opposition,  25the  interior  of 
Babylon  and  all  their  cities  I  cared  for  properly,  the  sons  of  Baby- 
lon   as  much  as  they  desired the  yoke  which 

was  not  suitable  for  them,  their  dwelling  place,  26their  disorder  I 
remedied,  I  caused  their  troubles  to  cease. 

At  my  (favourable)  deeds  Marduk  the  great  lord  rejoiced  and  27me, 
Cyrus,  the  king  who  reverences  him  and  Cambyses,  the  offspring  of 
my  body  (and)  all  my  troops,  28he  blessed  graciously,  while  we  right- 
eously lauded  his  exalted  divinity. (?) 

29A11  the  kings  dwelling  in  royal  halls,  of  all  the  regions  from  the 
upper  to  the  lower  sea.  dwelling the  Kings  of  the  West- 
land,  all  those  who  dwell  in  tents,  brought  me  30their  heavy  tribute 

and  in  Babylon  kissed  my  feet.     From as  far  as  Assur  and 

Susan,  31Agane,  Esnunak,  Zainban,  Meturnu,  Durilu,  as  far  as  the 
border  of  the  land  of  the  Quti,  the  cities  across  the  Tigris  whose  sites 
had  been  established  from  former  times,  32the  gods  who  live  within 
them,  I  returned  to  their  places  and  caused  them  to  dwell  in  a  perpet- 
ual habitation.  All  of  their  inhabitants  1  collected  and  restored  to 
their  dwelling  places,  33and  the  gods  of  Sumer  and  Akkad  whom 
Xabonidus,  to  the  anger  of  the  lord  of  the  gods,  had  brought  into  Baby- 
lon, at  the  command  of  Marduk  the  great  lord,  in  peace  34in  their 
own  shrines  I  made  them  dwell,  in  the  habitation  dear  to  their  heart. 
May  all  the  gods  whom  I  brought  into  their  own  cities,  35daily 
before  Bel  and  Xebo  pray  for  a  long  life  for  me,  may  they  speak  a 
gracious  word  for  me,  and  unto  Marduk  my  lord  may  they  say,  that 

Cyrus  the  King  who  reverences  thee  and  Cambyses  his  son36 

•  •  •  .their all  the  lands  I  caused  to  dwell  in  a  quiet  dwell- 
ing37  

US.  TUR.  XU  MES  and  TU.  KIL.  XU.  MES. 

10 


74 


THE  CYRUS  CYLINDER. 

COMMENTARY. 

L.  3.  'matu,'  weak  is  a  synonym  of  'ensu  '— cf.  ASKT  59.21.  'maxim 
matu '  =  light  price,  and  for  the  verb  see  IV.  56.11  'me  mastitiya 
umattu' — my  drinking  water  supply  they  lessened.  See  also  Zimmern, 
Busspsalmen,  93. 

'enutu' — abstract  formation  from  the  Sumerian,  'en'  Lord — cf 
Asurb,  1.38. 

L.  4.  'tamsilu' — similarity,  likeness — 147.  c.  vi.  14 — 'tam-sil  Xama- 
nim.'  The  form  '  tan-sil '  with  partial  assimilation  of  the  '  m  '  to  the 
'  s '  occurs  Sarg.  Cyl.  64.— For  this  change  cf .  Haupt,  Hebraica,  I.  pp. 
219-220,  and  see  below  note  to  v.  2,  of  Daniel  v. 

L.  6.  '  parac  la  simatisunu  ' — '  parcu  '  can  never  mean  '  shrine '  as  Jen- 
sen, Keilinschr.  Bibliothek,  III.  1  p.  201 — translates,  asserting  it  to  be 
asynonjTmof  'parakku.'  In  this  Jensen  appears  to  have  followed  an 
error  of  Winckler's,  for  which  see  Fried.  Delitzsch,  Beitrage  II.  p.  250 
and  remark. 

L.  7.  '  sattukku,'  the  regular  offering  or    "VOJl  .     For  the  Assyrian 

T 

names  of  sacrifices  cf .  Joh.  Jeremias,  Beitrage  I.  279.  '  sattukku '  may 
be  regarded  as  an  intensive  formation  with  'a'  in  the  first  syllable.  (?) 

L.  9.  '  tazimtu ' — lament  for  'tazzimtu'  from  v/QfJ — a  synonym  of 
unninu,  'lament'  and  dimtum,  'tear.'  See  Delitzsch,  Beitrage,  II. 
251,  and  passages  there  cited.  For  the  verb  'nazamu'  cf.  Asb. 
Smith  120,  27 — '  a-zi-ma ' — I  lamented  (var.  '  az-zi-ma ')  and  IV.  58,  20b 
k  unazzimu.' 

'  ki-su-ur-su-un,'  their  border — cf.  Keilinschr.  Bibliothek  III.  pt.  1. 
18811.  18-19.  '  a-xu-u-ti  ki-sur-si-na ' — the  portioning  off  of  their 
border.  In  V.  31,  3  e.  f.  we  find  'ki-sur-(ri)'='rni-cir.'  The  verb 
'kasaru'  means  'bar  off,'  cf.  I.  27,  34  b. 

L.  10.  'sa  innadu  subatsun'— not  'whose  abode  was  cast  down/ 
'subtu'  or  '  musabu  nadu'  means  to  set  up  or  establish  a  dwelling. 
See  Cyl.  31  and  Jager,  Beitrage  II.  282,  and  literature  there  cited. 

L.  11.  '  emu,'  be  like,  is  a  synonym  of  '  masalu  ' — V.  47, 23.  It  is  con- 
strued either  with  an  adverb  as  here  cf .  '  useme  karmis ' — '  I  made  it 
like  a  field,'  Sanh.  I.  75;  'emu  tilanis,'  I.  51.  n.  2.  14;  emu  'maxxu- 
tis,'  'they  were  as  if  destroyed,'  III.  15.  21,  c.  I.  (See  Jensen  Kosrn. 
336/7.).  or  with  '  kima  '—or  '  ki '  as  in  the  Deluge,  Nim.  Epos  II.  143.  1. 
203.  For  discussion  regarding  the  stem  v/HQJ7  see  note  to  v.  21  of 
Daniel  v.,  Appendix  II. 

'  salamtas '— cf.  '  Elamtas,'  Sanh.  Konst.  27—'  axratas,'  V.  34.  c.  II.  48. 
I  R,  Sargon  Barrel.  44,  and  I  R.  7.  F.  18,  'salamtu,'  or,  with  reciprocal 


Y5 

a»imi]atii»n    '  salandu,'   is   the   s&nie   as   JO^L^'XIJ)1?^   c'f-    Haupt, 

T-    :  T  :    -    : 

Ztschr-  fiir  Assyriologie  II.  266,  n.  5;  Beitrage  1.  3,  and  Hebraica  III. 
1^7.  for  the  existence  of  a  stem,  \/slm  meaning  to  die,  both  in  Assy- 
rian and  Samaritan. 

'tara.'  =  mercy  is  used  substantially  as  in  V.  64,  15*  and  Creation 
Fru-m.  n.  IS  ,,bv.  13  (Beitrage  II.  231)— cf.  also  V.  21,  54.  'taru,tir- 
anu.'  forgiveness,  is  a  synonym  of  '  mustaru' — V.  21. 57  (Beitrage  1.173) 
and  '  kis^u  '  =  love,  1.  56.  '  Ta-a-a-ra  '  is  an  intensive  form  like  '  daiianu' 
and  stands  for  '  taiiaru,'  cf.  Busspsalmen  102. 

L.  13.  Qute— see  below  on  Annals  III.  15. 

'  T  mman-manda  '  probably  means,  as  Jager  has  latelj7  suggested  (see 
Beitrage  II.  300  note),  the  'great  horde,'  or  'army,'  regarding  '  manda ' 
as  a  byform  of  'ma'da,  madda.'  See  the  citation  in  Delitzseh,  Assyr. 
Wbrterb".  227.  1.  20ff;  III.  R.  63.  38a,  where  we  find  'umman  ma'atti' 
(fern,  of  'ma'du')  for  'umman-manda.'  Delitzsch's  opinion  is  that 
'niandu'  stood  for  'niantu  '  =  'manu  '  =  "  ma'anu  '  (cf.  HJl^p  from 
\/pj7)  and  was  a  word  meaning  north,  (op.  cit.  226.)  (See,  however,  in 
this  connection  Jensen,  Kosm.  10).  Halevy,  Zeitschr.  filr  Assyr.  Ill 
188,  derived  it  from  >/"lHD  i.  e.  manda  =  madda. 

Uniman-manda  seems  to  have  been  the  common  name  for  the  wild 
hordes  of  the  east  and  north,  of  various  races,  who  were  probably 
s<>  called  owing  to  their  great  numbers.  Later  on,  however,  the  name 
became  applied  to  the  Medes  proper,  as  we  find  it,  for  instance,  in  VR. 
64.  o<>  ff.  where  Astyages  (Istumegu)  is  called  'King  of  the  Umman- 
manda.'  The  reason  of  this  was,  that  after  the  overthrow  of  Nineveh 
by  the  Medes.  the  wild  Asiatic  hordes  became  subject  to  Median  rule 
and  thus  were  identified  in  the  minds  of  foreigners  with  their  con- 
querors. In  the  passage,  V  R.  64.  30a,  there  is  apparently  a  com- 
parison between  the  '  Umman  manda,  great  army,'  of  Istumegu  and 
the  'ummani  iciiti '  of  Cyrus.  (See  Jager,  op.  cit.  300  note  and  com- 
pare, furthermore,  in  connection  with  the  name,  Proceedings  of  the 
Society  for  Biblical  Archaeology.  Nov.  7.  '82.  11.  Muss-Arnolt,  Hebra- 
ica. vol.  VII.,  p.  86 ff.  and  Tiele,  Geschichte,  334). 

'ni>e  ralmat  qaqqadi.' — Hagen,  Beitrage  II.  231,  thinks  that  this  can 
hardly  be  a  reference  to  the  Babylonians,  as  thejT  were  not  yet  con- 
quered by  Cyrus.  We  have  no  reason  to  doubt,  however,  that  Cyrus 
did  not  have  the  greater  part  of  Babylonia  in  his  hands  before  he 
took  Babylon  proper.  The  '  people  of  the  dark  heads '  here,  therefore, 
are  probably  those  Babylonians  who  had  already  surrendered  to  the 
Persian  power,  and  whom  Cyrus  had  treated  with  exemplary  forbear- 
ance. 

L.  14.  '  tarii ' — merciful,  a  derivative  from  '  taru  ' — to  turn  towards,  be 
gracious  to.  The  form  '  ta-ru-u  '  may  be  for  '  tiiru,'  an  adjectival  for- 
mation with  '  nisbe.'  Hagen,  Beitr.  II.  231,  compares  V.  47. 17  '  taranu  ' 
=' cillu.'  but  is  in  doubt  whether  'taranu'  is  from  'taru,'  'to  turn 
toward  '  or  from  a  stem  '  taru '  to  shield.  '  taranu,'  however,  may  be 


76 

a  formation  with  '-arm  '  from  '  taru,'  just  as  '  mutanu',  pestilence,'  is  a 
derivative  of  '  matu,'  cf.  also  '  garanu  '  —  a  running  of  tears,  from 
'gararu.' 

'ipsetisa  damqata'  —  It  seems  necessary  to  consider  with  Hagen  the 
'sa'  as  a  byform  of  the  masculine  suffix  -su.  Compare  1.  19,  'tukultisa' 
(=  su)  and  1.  28,  'maxarsa'  (—  su)  and  also  in  this  connection  IV.  27. 
11  b,  'etla  ina  bit  emutisa  usegu',  they  (the  evil  demons)  have  driven 
the  man  from  his  conjugal  chamber.' 

L.  15.  'tappu'  —  companion  and  technically,  partner,  cf.,  IV.  58,  50a 
'bit  tappesu  '—  '  kasap  tappesu'  ASKT  66.  7.  The  word  can  hardly 
be  connected  with  the  stem  "  fl^CD  ,"  —  protect,1  as  Muss-Arnolt  has 
sought  to  show,  (Hebraica,  vol.  VII.  p.  57.),  first,  because  the  Assyrian 
'  tappu  '  is  written  with  the  character  '  tap  '  (see  Haupt,  ASKT-Schrift- 
tafel  no.  65  and  ASKT,  p.  66-7  ff.)  which  indicates  a  value  '  fi'  for  the 
initial  consonant,  and  secondly,  because  the  forms  '  tap-pi-u-tu  '  and 
'tap-pe-su,'  occur,  showing  that  the  word  cannot  be  from  a  stem  yy  . 
We  find  also  the  feminine  form  l  tappatu  '—V.  39.  no.  3,  1.  62.  For  the 
abstract  'tapputu,'  cf.  IR.  Sennacherib  Prism,  1.  5b  —  'alik  tapput  aki  ' 
.  —  one  who  goes  to  protect  the  weak  :  V.  33,  c.  II,  5.  '  tap-pu-ut  Marduk.' 

The  stem  in  Assyrian  is  probably  a  derivative  from  the  non-semitic 
root  '  tap  '  =  two  —  the  partner  being  considered  the  '  second.'  Compare 
in  this  connection  V  R.  37.  28  if,  where  we  find  as  synonyms  of  '  tappu,' 
—  '  sina  '  =  twice,  '  kilallan  '  =  on  both  sides,  and,  V  R.  37.  1.  31,  '  atxu.' 
The  latter  being  a  form  from  the  same  stem  as  'axu'  brother,  with 
infixed  't,'  cf.  'itxutu'  =  howling,  from  v/  axu—  IV  9.  n.  3.  39. 

L.  16.  'uttaddu'—  from  'idu'—  to  know,  3  m.  pi.  of  the  Iftaal.  See 
IV.  15.  8a  ;  43,  44.  and  the  Deluge—  Haupt's  Nimrod  Epic,  pt.  II,  pp. 
134-139  1.  113.  For  the  form  cf.  Keilinschr.  und  das  A.  T.2  p.  73. 

'ganduma'  —  usually  of  harnessing  beasts  of  burden,  as  Hagen,  Bei- 
tra'ge,  II.  231  correctly  remarks.  For  a  figurative  usage  of  the  verb 
'gamadu'  compare  however,  ASKT.  116  1.  18.  'ma'dis  ana  salputi 
gamdaku  '  —  '  greatly  am  I  yoked  to  sin/ 

'sadaxu'  —  always  means  'to  proceed'  —  'march'  —  cf.  the  substantival 
usage  '  sadaxu  sa  Belit  Babili  '  Asurb.  VIII.  18.  The  procession  of  B. 
of  Babylon.  Derivatives  are  '  masdaxu  '  —  syn.  of  '  suqu  '  —  street,  II, 
33.  11—  see  also  ASKT  202.  n.  20,  and  'isdixu  '  =  'alaktu',  IV  57.  15a. 

L.  19.  ASKT  'Ina  tukulti-sa  '—  see  1.  14. 

'mitutan'  —  the  dead,  cf.  '  kullatan,'  matitan,'  'kilatan,'  Delitzsch, 
Assyr.  Or,  §  80.  d. 

'putaqu  u  pake,'  care  and  protection.  See  Hagen,  Beitrage  II,  232. 
'putaqu'  may  be  derived  from  a  stem  1£  =  paqu,  to  look,  care  for, 


1  tatapu—  means  really  to  surround,  enclose,  cf.  II  K.  23.  1.  ff  .  C.—  where  we  find  a 
door  called  'saniqtum,'  i.  e.  that  which  encloses  or  shuts  in,  and  also  '  mutetiptum' 
and  titippu.'  All  of  these  words  are  given  as  synonyms  of  '  daltum.' 


being,  as  Hagen  suggests,  an  intensive  reflexive  form.  '  paqii '  on  the 
other  hand  can  only  be  from  a  stem  tfp£  .  See  Flemmirig,  Neb.  39, 
and  Zimmern,  Busspsalmen  60,  n.  1,  who  explain  it  as  denoting  the  idea 
of  'confident  looking,'  cf.  Heb.  Hp5  i"  the  Piel,  which  means  'to 
look  attentively.'  Is  it  not  possible  that  p*)5  and  tfsp£  may  contain 
the  same  root  ?  There  seems  to  be  no  connection  between  the  '  pake  ' 
in  this  passage  of  the  Cyl.  and  that  in  V  R.  23,  23-27,  where  the  word 
1  pakii  '  is  cited  as  a  synonym  of  various  expressions  denoting  meekness. 

The  adverbial  accus.  '  piqa '  may  be  a  derivative  of  the  stem  fr$3p£  , 
cf .  Jager,  Beitrage  II,  305. 

L.  21.  Kuras  sar  Babili  ;  For  the  legends  regarding  Cyrus  in  general 
and  especially  in  connection  with  the  account  of  Herodotus,  compare 
Floigl.  Cyrus  und  Herodot ;  Bauer,  die  Cyrussage  ;  Schubert,  Herodots 
Darstellung  der  Cyrussage,  Breslau,  1890,  etc.,  etc.  For  the  chro- 
nology of  Cyrus'  reign,  compare  Tiele,  Geschichte,  p.  483,  and  the  litera- 
ture cited  note  2. ;  also  Budinger,  Die  neuentdeckten  Inschriften 
uber  Cyrus,  p.  39, 1884  and  Oppert  and  Menant,  Documents  Juridiques, 
p.  262. 

As  to  the  commencement  and  duration  of  Cyrus'  rule  in  Babylon 
the  following  statement  may  be  of  interest.  The  last  contracts  of 
the  reign  of  Xabonidus  are  dated  in  the  month  lyar  (April-May) 
538.  B.C.  The  date  538  instead  of  the  usual  539  (See  Unger,  Kyaxares- 
und  Astyages  p.  52,  Nbldeke,  Aufsatze,  p.  26)  is  necessitated  by  the 
nine  months'  reign  of  Labasi-Marduk,  unmentioned  by  the  Ptole- 
ma?an  Canon,  which  brings  forward  the  date  of  the  fall  by  one  year. 
Babylon  was  taken  on  the  16th  Tammuz  (July  15th)  538,  when 
Xabonidus  ceased  to  reign.  Cyrus  entered  the  city  the  3rd  day  of 
Marchesvan  (October  27)  evidently  assuming  the  reins  of  government 
at  once,  as  the  first  known  contract  of  his  reign  is  dated  in  the  follow- 
ing month  in  his  '  commencement  year  ; '  i.  e.  Kislev  16th  (December 
9th)  538.  (See  Tiele,  Geschichte  424,  Unger,  op.  cit.  52.)  The  official 
first  year  did  not  begin  therefore  until  five  months  later;  i.e.  Nisan 
537. 

As  to  the  exact  duration  of  Cyrus'  reign  there  is  some  confusion. 
Although  the  Ptolemiean  Canon  gives  him  nine  years  as  King  of  Baby- 
lon, a  contract  exists,  dated  in  his  tenth  year,  giving  him  the  title 
'  King  of  Babylon  and  of  the  Lands.'  (See  Tiele,  Greschichte  483,  citing 
Strassmaier.)  It  is  possible  either  that  this  may  be  an  error  or  that 
the  writer  may  have  confused  the  last  year  of  Nabonidus  or  the  com- 
mencement months  of  Cyrus  with  the  first  year  of  Cyrus'  reign.  The 
twenty-nine  years  of  Herodotus  I.  214  and  the  thirty  years  of  Ktesias 
(see  Justin  I.  8.)  attributed  to  Cyrus,  refer  to  his  combined  rule  over 
Ansan  and  Babylon.  It  is  therefore  probable  that  Cyrus  began  to 
reign  in  Ausan  either  twenty  or  twenty-one  years  before  he  captured 
Babylon  ;  i.  e.  about  558  or  559.  (See  Evers,  Das  Einporkornmen  der 
persischen  Macht  unter  Cyrus,  39,  who  sets  his  birth  about  590.) 


78 

'  isar  kibrati  erbittim' — For  the  origin  and  significance  of  this  title  see 
now  Lehmarm,  Samassumukin  pp.  78,  93-98. 

L.  21.  '  Mar  Kambuziya,'  etc. 

The  genealogy  of  the  Achsemenian  Kings  presents  a  hitherto 
unsolved  problem,  of  which  a  brief  statement  may  be  interesting. 

Cyrus  was  descended  from  the  same  stock  as  Darius  Hystaspis. 
Their  respective  genealogies  as  given  in  the  Cylinder  and  the  Behistun 
Inscription  may  be  seen  from  the  following  table  : 

f  Cyrus,         son  of  Darius,        son  of 

Genealogy  • 


of  the      \  Carnl)yse8'  Vistaspa,  Genealogy 

Cylinder     I  CyrUS'  Arsama,  of  the 

'  " 


I  (Sigpig)  Teispis  Ariaramna,     "  Behistun 

((JaiSpiS)  Teispis        I    inscription. 
Hakhamanis 

Darius  Hystaspis  in  the  Behistun  Inscription  traces  his  descent  from 
Hakhamanis  (Achaemenes)  giving  five  generations  of  his  ancestry,  but 
adding  that  eight  of  his  family  were  formerly  kings  and  that  he  was 
the  ninth.  (See  Spiegel,  Altpersische  Keilinschriften,  1881,  p.  3). 
The  eight  generations  can  be  made  up  from  Herodotus,  who  in  his 
ancestry  of  Xerxes  added  three  names  between  Qaispis  (Teispis)  and 
Hakhamanis,  the  latter  of  whom,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  above  table 
is  mentioned  in  the  Behistun  Inscription  as  father  of  the  former. 
The  three  names  introduced  by  Herodotus  are:  another  Teispis,  whom 
we  may  call  the  first,  and  another  Cambyses  and  Cyrus.  His  geneal- 
ogy giving  eight  generations  is  as  follows:  Her.  VII.  11.  M?)  -yap  tiyv 
£K  Aaphov  TOV  '  YcrrdcrTreof  ,  TOV  'Apadjueo^  TOV  "Ap/iveu  TOV  Tei'crTreof,  adding 
then  TOV  Tcivpov  TOV  ILaftfivffeu  TOV  TeiaTrzoc  TOV  'A%aiju,£V£0£  jey6v<j)^. 

Hystaspis,  however,  according  to  Herodotus  III.  70,  was  merely  a 
governor  in  Persia,  though  of  good  family  and  it  is  probable  that 
Arsames  and  Ariararnnes  were  never  Kings,  nor  are  they  so  called  in 
the  Behistun  Inscription. 

Comparing  then  the  record  of  the  Cyrus  Cylinder  with  the  list  of 
Herodotus,  still  further  difficulties  arise,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  fol- 
lowing table: 

Herodotus  and  f 

Behistun        \  Hakhamanis  =  Achaemenes 
Inscription. 


Names  | 
only 
Herodc 

Herodotus  and 
Behistun 
Inscription. 

riven 

by 
tus. 

Ari 
Ars 
Hy 
Dai 

Teispis  (?) 
Cambyses  (?) 
Cyrus  (?) 

Cyrus 
Cylinder 

Teispis 

aramnes             Cyrus  I 
ames                   Cambyses  I 
staspis                 Cyrus  the  Great 
•ius                      Cambyses  II. 

79 

Omitting  the  three  immediate  ancestors  of  Darius  and  counting  only 
the  other  line,  beginning  with  Cambyses  II,  son  of  Cyrus  the  great, 
nine  kings  of  Darius'  family  will  be  found  instead  of  eight.  (Winck- 
ler,  Untersuchungen,  p.  28,  omits  Achaemenes,  the  '  Ahnherr ' ;  but  he 
is  especially  mentioned  by  the  account  of  Darius  as  the  first  of  his 
house.) 

On  examining  the  record  of  Herodotus  (Teispis?  Cambyses?  Cyrus?) 
and  comparing  it  with  the  account  of  the  Cylinder  (Teispis,  Cyrus, 
Cambyses,  Cyrus)  it  seems  probable  that  Herodotus  misunderstood  the 
genealogies,  placing  two  parallel  lines  in  consecutive  order,  omitting 
the  Cyrus  after  Teispis  and  introducing  a  second  Teispis.2  Adopting 
this  supposition  and  omitting  the  Teispis,  Cambyses  and  Cyrus  of 
Herodotus  the  following  family  tree  can  be  presented: 

Achaemenes 
Teispis 


Ariaramnes  Cyrus  I 

Arsames  Cambyses  I 

Hystaspis  Cyrus  (the  Great) 

Darius  Cambyses  II 

Here  again  if  the  three  immediate  predecessors  of  Darius  be  omitted 
as  non-kings,  there  is  an  ancestry  of  only  six,  whereas  if  they  be 
included  there  is  a  total  of  nine.3  Of  course  the  easiest  way  out  of  the 
difficulty  is  with  Halevy  (Museon  2.  43.)  to  cut  the  knot  by  calling 
Darius  a  liar  and  asserting  that  he  purposely  gave  a  wrong  genealogy. 
(Winckler,  Untersuchungen,  128,  hints  at  such  a  solution.  See  in  this 
connection  Delattre,  Medes,  53). 

Concerning  the  early  history  of  the  Achaemenians  practically  all  that 
can  be  decided  at  present  is,  that  if  as  seems  necessary,  Ariaramnes. 
Arsames  and  Hystaspis  be  omitted,  two  unknown  kings4  must  be 
included  in  the  list  in  order  to  make  up  the  total  of  eight  claimed  by 
Darius. 

As  will  be  seen  from  the  above,  the  descent  of  Cyrus  the  Great  is 
perfectly  clear  up  to  Teispis  and  that  Teispis  was  not  only  an  ancestor 

a  Amiaud,  Melanges  Renier  260,  accepts  the  genealogy  of  Herodotus  and  conject- 
ures that  the  second  Teispis  may  have  been  the  first  King  of  Persia  to  rule  over 
Ansan. 

s  Floigl  (op.  cit.  22)  includes  them,  considering  them  Kings  of  Hyrcania  (see  pp. 
6-7)  and  in  order  to  bring  down  the  total,  sacrifices  Cyrus  I.  the  Grandfather  of 
Cyrus  the  Great.  The  latter  however  distinctly  designates  his  grandfather  as 
4  great  King,  King  of  Ansan.' 

*  Spiegel  adds  before  Achaemenes  and  Teispis  two  supposed  kings  of  the  same 
name.  If,  however,  Achaemenes,  the  founder  of  the  dynasty,  be  conceived  of  as 
mythical  (the  ///}«£— so  Biidinger,  p.  6,  Winckler,  p.  28)  and  as  never  having  reigned, 
(Meyer,  Gesch.  559)  it  will  be  necessary  to  supply  three  supposititious  kings.  For 
other  opinions  concerning  this  problem  see  Rawlinson,  Journal  of  the  Royal 
Asiatic  Society,  1880,  74  ff.  Oppert,  Medes,  113,  b.  162  b.  refuted  however  by  Spiegel, 
op.  cit.  84,  Biidinger  6,  Evers.  26  ff.  etc. 


80 

of  Darius  Hystaspis,  but  also  an  Achaemenian  and  an  Aryan,  is  shown 
by  the  Persian  inscriptions.5  Cyrus  was  therefore  not  of  Elamitic 
origin  or  naturalization,  as  some  have  sought  to  show,6  but  an  Aryan 
of  Aryan  descent,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  writers  both 
sacred  and  profane.  Not  only  is  Cyrus  called  King  of  Persia  (Parsu) 
in  the  Babylonian  inscriptions,  but  the  testimony  of  the  biblical  writ- 
ers as 'well  as  of  Herodotus,  who  drew  from  Greek,  Lydian,  Egyptian, 
Babylonian  and  Persian  sources,  point  to  the  same  fact.  We  should 
compare  the  scriptural  references  to  Cyrus  as  a  Persian  or  King  of 
Persia;  Daniel  vi.  28  ;  II  Chron.  xxxvi.  22,  23  ;  Ezra  i.  1,  2,  7,  8;  iii. 
7 ;  iv.  3.  In  Ezra  v.  13,  he  is  called  King  of  Babylon.  (See  in  this 
connection  Delattre,  Medes  48,  49.) 

'  Sar  al  Ansan.'  The  place  is  specified  either  as  al  Ansan  (city  of 
Ansan)  as  here  or  mat  Ansan,  indifferently.  See  V  R.  64.29,  where 
Cyrus  is  called  King  of  the  country  of  Ansan  and  an  insignificant  vas- 
sal of  Astyages,  'ardu  paxrC  The  city  or  country  evidently  bore  the 
same  name.  It  is  mentioned  in  the  astronomical  tablets  in  connection 
with  Subartu.  Compare  Delattre  :  Cyrus  dans  les  monuments  Assy- 
riens,  p.  2,  and  for  Subartu,  see  Zeitschr.  fur  Assyr.  I.  196. 

The  country  of  Anzan  or  Ansan,  over  which  Cyrus  and  his  three 
ancestors  ruled  has  excited  numerous  conjectures.  See  Evers,  op.  cit., 
p.  30  ff.  and  literature  cited.  Some  critics,  such  as  Rawlinson  (Journal 
of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Soc.  XII.2  p.  76)  and  Sayce  (Transactions  III. 
475)  have  considered  it  identical  with  Elam,  following  the  syllabary 
II  R,  47,  18,  where  we  find  An-du-anki-As-sa-an=Elamtu.  (cf.  also 
Fresh  Light  from  the  Ancient  Monuments,  180,  and  Meyer,  Geschichte, 
396,  493. 

That  the  name  cannot  be  synonymous  with  Elam  is  shown  in  Sen- 
nach.,  Taylor,  5,  31,  where  it  is  recorded  that  the  King  of  Elam  leagued 
against  Assyria  with  a  number  of  smaller  states  among  which  was 
Ansan.  (See  Weisbach,  Anzanische  Inschriften,  123-124.)  Ansan 
must  therefore  have  been  an  independent  state,  but  we  may  conclude 
from  II  R.,  47,  18  probably  at  one  time  tributary  to  Elam.  In  early 
days  it  appears  to  have  been  a  feeble  power,  as  it  succumbed 
the  attacks  of  Princes  like  Gudea  (Amiaud,  Ztschr.  fur  Keilschrift- 
forschung  1,  249)  and  Mutabbil  of  Durilu  (Winckler,  Untersuchungen, 
116,  156,  157.)  In  the  classical  authors  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
place  but  the  Arab,  Ibn  el  Nadirn  (Kitab  el  Fihrist  12, 22,  cited  JRAS. 

5  Naqsh-i  Rustem  8.  '  I  am  Darius son  of  Vistaspa  the  Achsemenian,  a  Per 

sian  son  of  a  Persian,  an  Aryan  sou  of  an  Aryan.'  In  Behistun  1, 14,  61  Darius  says 
that  the  government  which  Gaumata  the  Magian  usurper  took  from  Cambyses  had 
been  in  the  family  from  most  ancient  times.  This  can  only  refer  to  the  rule  over 
Persia. 

e  HalSvy,  Revue  des  fitudes  Juives,  1880.  Comptes  rendues  de  1'Academie  des 
Inscriptions  7, 1880.  Melanges  6,  also  formerly  Sayce,  Herodotus  386 ;  Fresh  Light, 
167-175.  See  however  Delattre  Medes,  45-54,  who  meets  and  refutes  all  of  Hal<§vy's 
theories  In  this  connection.  Ktesias  stated,  apparently  with  little  or  no  authority 
that  Cyrus  was  the  son  of  a  '  Mardian '  robber  Athadates. 


81 


XII.2  76)  speaks  of  an  ^jl  in  the  district  of  Tuster  (Shuster)  which 
is  probably  identical  with  the  Ansan  of  the  Achsemenians. 

The  title  King  of  Ansan  proves  nothing  against  the  Persian  origin  of 
Cyrus,  whose  family  may  have  acquired  this  Elamitic  country  by  con- 
quest, perhaps  under  Teispis,  or  some  previous  king.7  It  is  well 
known  that  in  earlier  times  Ansan  was  ruled  by  a  non-  Aryan,  non- 
Semitic  native  line,  and  it  may  be  supposed  that  all  the  Elamitic 
provinces  after  the  complete  overthrow  of  Elam  by  Assurbanipal 
were  an  easy  prey  to  any  invader.  (Note  that  the  language  of  Ansan 
was  Elamitic  —  See  Weisbach,  Anzanische  Inschriften,  124.125.  and 
below,  Appendix  II.  on  v.  28.  Amiaud,  Melanges  Renier,  249,  thought 
that  Ansan  was  the  most  ancient  part  of  Elam.) 

With  reference  to  the  fact  that  the  Elamitic  Susa  was  the  seat  of 
the  Persian  power,  which  has  been  cited  by  Halevy,  (see  Delattre, 
Medes  52)  as  an  evidence  against  the  Persian  origin  of  Cyrus  we  find  a 
satisfactory  explanation  in  Strabo.  Susiana,  the  Geographer  said,  had 
become  like  a  part  of  Persia.  After  the  conquest  of  Media,  Cyrus  and 
the  Persians,  owing  to  the  remote  situation  of  their  own  country, 
established  the  seat  of  their  government  in  the  more  central  Susa,  the 
chief  city  of  Susiana,  which  is  not  far  from  Babylon  and  the  other 
provinces.  (See  Strabo,  15.  3.  2.  cited  by  Delattre,  1.  c.)  Now  as 
Delattre  has  pointed  out,  had  Susa  been  their  hereditary  capital  we 
would  expect  to  find  the  Elamitic  language  as  the  usual  idiom  of 
the  Achaemenian  inscriptions.  It  seems  probable  that  the  AchaBme- 
nian  kings  and  the  Persians  had  at  some  unknown  period  of  their  his- 
tory conquered  and  annexed  to  their  own  territory  the  Elamitic  country 
of  Ansan.  When,  with  the  conquest  of  Media  by  Cyrus,  a  larger  ter- 
ritory was  at  their  disposal,  a  proper  capital  being  necessary  for  the 
new  empire,  the  splendour  of  the  old  Elamitic  Susa  influenced  Cyrus 
to  establish  it  as  his  headquarters. 

L.  22.  '  ixsixa  '  —  an  imperfect  also  occurs  in  '  u  '  —  cf.  Asurb.  VII.  33. 
ix-su-xa,  also  Tig.  VII.  47.  Derivatives  are  'xusaxxu  '='  necessity, 
famine,'  cf.  Asurb.  III.  125,  Tig.  VIII.  85.  and  'Xisixtu  '=need,  want— 
cf.  Aram  mPTt^'H"  Dan.  iii.  16  ;  Ezra  vi.  9  ;  vii.  20.  A  synonym  of 
'xusaxxu  '  is  "  qalqaltum,"  V  R,  11.  42/43  def. 

L.  23.  ase'a  palaxsu  se'u  '  —  to  care  for,  trouble  about,  is  frequently 
used  in  a  religious  sense,  cf.  ASKT.  75.1.  b  'anaku  Pulpul  mar  Pulpul 
aradka  asxurka  ese  (ka)'  —  I  N.  son  of  N.  thy  servant  turn  to  thee,  seek 
There  are  three  verbs,  'se'u'  in  Assyrian  :  viz.,  1.  seu—  to  seek  — 
,  Hebrew  njft?'=to  look,  cf.  2  S.  22.42,  to  look  for  help.  Gen. 
iv.  4,  5  look  graciously  upon,  etc.  2.  Se'u  —  to  grow,  from  which 

'  See  Evers,  op.  cit.  39;  Winckler,  Untersuch.  128.  Amiaud,  Melanges  Renier, 
260,  n.  3,  refers  the  overthrow  of  Elam  in  Jeremiah  xlix.  34  ff.  to  the  conquest  of 
that  country  by  the  Persians.  See  also  H.  H.  Howarth,  Academy,  no.  1033,  p.  182. 
Note  that  Ezekiel  xxxii.  24  speaks  of  Elam  as  a  conquered  people;  cf.  Meyer, 
Gesch.  560. 

11 


82 

'  se'um  '  grain,  cf.  se'u  zer,  I.  70.  c.  1. 1 :  also  AL393.  B.  6.  (creation  tab- 
let)—Hebrew  rW-sprout.     3.  'Se'u'— to  fly,   cf.  Agurb.  VIII.    88. 

L.  25.  '  Subatsun  ' — Hagen,  Beitrage  II.  232,  reads  l  suzuz(?)-su-un, 
a  shafel  of  '  nazazu  ' — and  translates  '  the  yoke  *  *  was  taken  from 
them.'  This  however  necessitates  supposing  an  entirely  new  value 
'zuz'forthe  character  '  be,  bat,  til,  ziz.'  Besides  this  objection,  the 
meaning  'taken  away'  for  the  shafel  of  'nazazu'  given  by  Delitzsch, 
Wbrterbuch,253,  in  the  passage  V.  50.51/52,  and  cited  by  Hagen,  1.  c.  in 
support  of  this  translation  of  '  suzuz-su-un '  is  by  no  means  certain. 
The  passage  reads  '  sarat  zumrisu  uszizu '  (V.50  51/52)  and  is  rather 
to  be  translated  '  one  the  hair  of  whose  body  the  evil  demon  has  caused 
to  stand  up  (i.  e.  in  fear),  and  not '  taken  away.' 

L.  28.  'ma-xar-sa' — see  1.  14.  '  parakku,' — '  sacred  shrine,' or  'royal 
apartment,'  not  a  'seat,'  '  heiliger  Gottersitz.'  with  Lehmann,  '  Samas- 
sumukin,'  Glossar,  I,  and  Berliner  philologische  Wochenschrift,  1891, 
No.  25  sp.  789.  f .  The  word  is  a  derivative  from  the  stem  '  paraku  '  = 
to  separate,  bar  off,  and  signifies  literally,  a  place  barred  off.  Cf. 
Asurb.  IV.  125  '  sa  kima  duri  rabe  pan  Elamti  parku '  which  like  a 
great  wall  barred  the  way  before  Elam.  also  1.  c.  IV.  82  '  sa  suqe  pur- 
ruku ' — which  blocked  up  the  streets.  '  Napraku  '  and  '  parku '  signify 
a  bolt,  and  are  synonyms  of  '  inedilu,'  cf.  II.  23,  35-37,  and  38. 

For  the  form  of  '  parakku  '  see  Delitzsch,  Assyrian  Grammar,  Engl. 
Ed.  Pi  169. 

L.  29.  For  '  kustaru '  see  Delitzsch  in  the  Zeitschr.  fur  Assyriologie 
L  419  ff. 

L.  30.  '  bilatsunu  kabittim.'  '  biltu  '  is  probably  cognate  with  the 
Hebrew  1^5 1  see  l>aul  Haupt,  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental 
Society,  XIII.  51  f. 

L.  31.  Agaric  ki  an  ancient  city  the  site  of  which  has  not  yet  been 
discovered,  but  it  appears  to  have  been  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Tigris 
in  northern  Babylonia.  The  idea  that  the  name  of  the  place  was 
'  Agade,'  another  form  of  '  Akkad,'  (cf.  Hommel,  Geschichte  p.  204  rem. 
1.  and  p.  220;  234)  is  entirely  unfounded.  Agane  was  plundered  by 
Xunibaxaldaisu  II.  King  of  Elarn  in  the  sixth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Esarhaddon  (674)  and  the  image  of  the  goddess  Naria  was  carried  away 
to  Elam.  For  the  ancient  kings  of  the  city  see  Lehmann,  '  Samassum- 
ukin,'  93.  Tiele  Gesch.  83,  113,  333,  and  Murdter-Delitzsch.  Babyl. 
Gesch.  2  ed.,  p.  73. 

1  Es-nu-nak  '  is  Hagen's  reading  for  l  Ab-nu-nak  '  on  account  of  the 
form  '  ASnunnak '  V.  33.  I.  36.  (Inscription  of  Agumkakrime)  cf.  also 
'Is-nu-nak'  I.  66.  n.  2  c.  II.  3  and  see  Del.,  Paradise,  230  f.  and  Kos- 
saeans  p.  60.  It  is  a  city  and  district  on  the  border  of  Elam.  In  II. 
39,  59  g.  h.  we  find  it  compared  with  Um-li-as.  Jensen  in  Keilinschr. 
Bibliothek  III.  pt.  1.  137  n.  however  doubts  the  identity  of  Esnunnak 
and  UmliaS  thinking  that  the  former  may  be  the  same  as  the  '  matu 


83 

rabu'  of  1.  60,  while  the  latter -may  be  the  'matu  gixru'  mentioned 
II  R.  39. 

Zamban  and  Me-tur-nu.     See  Delitzsch,  Paradise,  230  f.  also  203, 204. 

Dur-ilu,  see  Winckler  Untersuchungen  zur  Altoriental.  Gesch.  86, 
Peiser  Actenstiicke,  77.  It  was  the  site  of  the  battle  between  Xum- 
banigas  of  Elam  and  Sargon  of  Assyria. 

'  pa-at  Quti '  = '  entrance  '  of  Gutium.  See  II  R.  51.  c.  II.  21  and 
Delitzsch,  Par.  233 — (Hagen).  Professor  Haupt  has  suggested  that 
'  patu '  is  probably  a  feminine  plural  form  of  '  pu '  mouth,  just  as 
lpanu'  face  is  to  be  considered  a  masculine  plural  of  the  same  word. 
1  pitu '  to  open  may  also  be  a  verbal  formation  from  the  feminine  of 
'puV 

'Qute'— See  'Gutium'  on  Annals  III.  17. 

'  apnama '  is  probably  an  abbreviation  for  '  appunama.'  See  Delitzsch 
Proleg.  136.  According  to  V  R.  47,  55,  it  is  a  synonym  of  ma'dis  ;  see 
Zimmern  Busspsalmen,  97  and  cf.  II.  16,  21  where  it  appears  to  have 
the  force  of  'very,  exceedingly';  'ina  nari  tabbasima  rnuka  daddaru 
appunama.'  When  thou  art  in  the  river,  thy  water  is  exceedingly 
'daddaru,'  i.  e.  gall-like—bitter.  For  'daddaru,'  see  also  IV.  3,  30b 
(Busspsalmen  97),  where  it  is  explained  by  the  same  ideogram  as 
'martu';  viz.,  Qi— cf.  Syll.  Sb  194  £i  —  martu  =  gall,  bitterness,  for 
'  marratu  '—(see  Haupt,  Beitr.  1, 16  and  cf.  Heb.  fTVlp  .)  '  Daddaru  ' 
is.  as  Jager  has  pointed  out,  a  reduplicative  formation  from  *V|fc$  =  be 
dark,  hence  perhaps  dirty.  (?)  (See  Beitrage  II.  299.) 

'  appuna '  is  explained  by  '  piqa '  II.  25, 10  ;  16, 44,  and  by  the  Sumerian 
'  iirinzu '  (V.  16, 30  ef.  ASKT.  182, 12),  which  according  to  Jensen,  Kos- 
mologie  403,  is  translated  in  a  Berlin  syllabary  by  Assyrian  'mandi,1 
the  exact  meaning  of  which  is  not  clear.  (See  V.  16,  32  f.)  The  form 
' man (min )dima'  occurs  Senn.  Bawian,  40.  See  Del.  Assyr.  Gram., 
p.  210.  For  '  piqa '  see  note  to  1.  19. 

In  II.  16,21  e.,  we  find  in  the  Sumerian  column  'an-ga-an'  as  the 
equivalent  of  'appunama.'  This  is  evidently  a  byform  of  *iginzu?  I 
believe  Jager  (1.  c.)  is  right  in  connecting  'appunama'  with  the  Tal- 
mudic  *03"£lN  —  '  indeed,  in  truth.'  In  fact  all  of  these  words,  '  piqa, 
mandi,  iginzu'  and  *  angan '  are  probably  to  be  translated  in  this  way. 

L.  34.  '  mastakisunu  '  cf.  IV.  27, 9b  '  ardatam  mastakisa  uselu  ?  =  They 
have  made  the  girl  go  up  from  her  dwelling.  Asurb.  X.  72,  'mastaku 
suatu  musallimu  belesuma '  =  The  abode  which  blesses  its  owner. 

L.  35.  'Littaskaru' — Xiphal  Reflexive  of  'zakaru'  with  partial  assim- 
ilation of  the  'z'  to  the'k.'  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  a  verb 
'sakaru'  with  Hagen.  (Why  sakaru  with  p  ?) 

Parallel  forms  are  '  isqup  '  from  '  zaqapu'  and  'isxur '  from  '  saxaru.' 

L.  37.  For  US-TUR-XU  and  TU-KIL-XU— see  Hagen,  Beitrage  II. 
234. 


THE  ANNALS  OF  NABONIDUS. 

TRANSLITERATION. 

Column  /. 
1 


2  ............................................................... 

............  su  is-si2  sarru 

3  .............................................................. 

----  ma-ti-su-nu3  ana  Babili7  u-bil-lu 

4  ............................................................... 

^j  (unwritten  space.) 

5  ............................................................... 

su  is-(iz,  i9)-xu-xu-ma  ul  is-si. 

6  .............................................................. 

ti  kimat3-su-nu  ma-la  basu-u 

7  ........  .  .................................................... 

(e)-zib.    Sarru  umman-su  id-qe-ma  ana  xu-me-e4 

8  ................................................................ 

.  .  i§  (unwritten  space.) 

9  (Sattu   2kan)  ................................................. 

(ina)    araxTebeti  ina  Xa-ma-a-tu  ipsax5 

10  (Sattu  3  kan)  .................................................. 

(ina)  araxAbi  §adAm-ma-na-nu  sa-qi-i 

11  ...............    ......  .  ............................ 

§ip-pa-a-tu  inbu6  ma-la  ba-su-u 

12  .....  ...................................  .  ................... 

si-ib-bi-si-na  ana  qi-rib  Babili7 

13  ..........................................  e-zib-ma  iblu8-ut.     Ina 

araxKisilimi  sarru  umman-su 

14  .......................... 

.  .  .  .tim  Nabu-?9-dan-u9ur 

1  NUN-ME. 

2  su  i§-si  or  is-lim.    This  is  of  course  not  the  ending  of  a  proper  name.    C/.  Floigl, 
Cyrus  und   Herodot,  pp.  54,  55,  who  thought  the  passage  referred  to  Croasus  of 
Lydia. 

3  IM-RI-A. 

4  Thus  Hagen.    Schrader  considered  it  a  proper  name  with  determinative. 
*  See  Briinnow's  List,  3036  for  the  ideogram. 

e  So  Winckler,  Untersuchungen,  p.  154. 

7EM- 

«  TIN. 

»  Hagen  suggests  MAX.    Winckler  has  a  sign  compounded  of  '  si  '  and  '  en.' 


85 


THE  ANNALS  OF  NABONIDUS. 

TRANSLATION. 
Column  I. 

1 

his  leader 

2 

.his. . .  .the  king  took  away(?) 

3 

of  their  land  unto  Babylon  they  brought 

4 


5 

§u  is-xu-xu-ma(f)  he  did  not  take  away 

: 6 

of(?)  their  families,  as  many  as  there  were 

7 

he  left.     The  king  collected  his  troops,  in  order  to(?) 

8 

is. 

(Second  year) 9 

in  the  month  Tebet  in  the  land  of  Hamatu  he  gave  peace. 

(Third  year) 10 

A 

in  the  month  Ab,  the  high  mountain  Amanus 

11 

willows,  fruit  as  much  as  there  was 

12 

their. . .  .unto  the  midst  of  Babylon 

he  left  and  remained  alive.     13 

In  Kislev  the  king  (collected)  his  troops. 

14 

tim 


15     

(tam)-tim  sa  matAxarri10  a-na 

16     

-du-um-mu  it-ta-du-u 

17     

-ma  gabe  ma-du-tu 

18     

abullu11  aiSin-di-ni 

19     

tiduki-su 

20     

te-qu. 

21     

gabeP1- 

Column  II. 

1  (Ummansu)   upaxxir12-ma   ana   eli  mKu-ras   sar  An-sa-an  ana  ka- 
(sa-di-su13)  il-lik-ma.  . . . 

2  Is-tu-me-gu  umman-su  ibbalkit-su-ma  ina  qati  ga-bit  a-na  mKu-ras 
id-(di-nu-su). 

3  mKu-ras    a-na  matA-gam-ta-nu  al  sarru-u-tu  kaspu   xuragu  sa-su 
makkuru14 

4  sa  matA-gam-ta-nu  is-lul-u-ma  a-na  mntAn-sa-an  il-qi.    §a-su  mak- 
kuru14 sa  ud   

5  Sattu    7kan-    Sarru  ina    aiTe-ma-a     mar  sarri    amG1rabuti  u   gabe- 
su  ina  matAkkadiki 

6  ana  Babili7  la  illi-ku.     Nabu  ana  Babili15  la  illi-ku.     Bel  la  itta- 
ga-a  isinnu1*5  (akitu). . . . 

7  niqe  ina  E-sag-gil  u  E-zi-da  ilani  sa  Babili17  u  Bar-sap  ki  (sal-mu) 

8  iddi18-nu  urigallu19  is-ruq-ma  bita  ip-qid. 

9  Sattu  8ka«- 

10  Sattu    9kan-      Nabu-naid20     sarru      (ina)     aiTe-ma-a,     mar    sarri, 
am61rabuti  u  umma-ni  ina  matAkkadi.     Sarru  ana  araxNisani  ana 
Babili17 

11  la  illi-ku,  Nabu  ana  Babili15  la  illi-ku,  Bel  la  ittagn-a  i-sin-nu  a-ki- 
tu  ba-til 

12  niqe  ina  E-sag-gil  u  E-/i-da  ilani  sa  (Ba])ili)  u  Bar-sip-ki  ki  sal- 
mu  iddi-18na. 

10  MAR-TD. 

11  Evidently  ' babu  rabn.' 

12  NIGIN-So  Hagen. 
is  Hagen. 

14  SA-GA. 

is  Ka-dingir-ra-ki. 

IB  For  the  ideogram  see  Delitzsch,  Lesestttcke,  Schrifttafel,  n.  111.  Col.  2. 

n  Tin-tir-ki. 


19  SES.  GAL.    I  read  '  is-ruq '  with  Hagen  as  preferable  to  Schrader's  '  kirt(??)-ma. 

20  AN-PA-T. 


87 

? 15 

the  sea  of  the  Westland  unto 

16 
<1  II-H nt-iiui  set  up. 

17 

numerous  warriors 

18 

the  irate  of  the  city  of  Sindin 

: 19 

his  troops.  " 

20 

(marched  ?) 

21 

warriors. 

Column  II. 

(His  troops)  he  collected,  against  Cyrus,  king  of  Ansan,  to  conquer      1 
him  he  went. 

(Against)  Astyages  his  troops  rebelled  and,  being  taken  prisoner,      2 
unto  Cyrus  they  gave  him. 
Cyrus  unto  Ecbatana,  the  royal  city,  went,  the  silver,  gold,  treas-      3 

ures,  spoil 

of  the  land  of  Ecbatana  they  captured  and  unto  the  land  of  An-        4 

sun  he  brought.     The  treasures  and  spoil  which 

The  seventh  year.     The  king  in  Tema  ;  the  nobles  and  his  army  in       5 

Akkad.     (The  king  for  Nisan) 

unto  Babylon  came  not.     Nebo  unto  Babylon  came  not,  Bel  was      6 

not  brought  forth;  the  New  Year's  festival  (remained  uncelebrated), 

sacrifices  in  Esagu'il  and  Ezida  to  the  gods  of  Babylon  and  Bor-      7 

sippa.  as  is  (right), 

they  gave,  the  Urigal  poured  out  libations  and  guarded  the  palace.      8 

The  eighth  year. 

The  ninth  year.     Nabonidus  the  king  in  Tema  ;  the  son  of  the  king,     10 

the  nobles  and  his  army  in  Akkad.     The  king  for  Nisan  unto 

Babylon 

came   not.      Nebo   unto   Babylon  came  not,  Bel  Avas  not  brought     11 

forth  ;  the  New  Year's  festival  remained  uncelebrated, 

sacrifices  in  Esaggil  and  Ezida  to  the  gods  of  Babylon  and  Bor-     12 

sippa,  as  is  right,  they  gave. 


88 

13  araxNisanu  umu   5kan.  Ummi    sarri    ina   Dur-ka-ra-su    sa    kisad21 
narPurati22  e-la-nu  Sip-parki 

14  im-tu-ut.     Mar    sarri    u   §abe-su  3    u-mu    su-du-ru   bikitu    sitku- 
na'23-at.     Ina  araxSimani  ina  matAkkadiki 

15  bi-ki-tu  ina  eli  ummi  sarri  sitkuna-at.23    Ina  araxNisani  mKu-ras 
sar  matPar-su  gabe-su  id-qi-e-ma 

16  sap-la-an  aiAr-ba-'-il  narDiqlat  i-rab-ma  ina  araxAri  anamat 

17  sarri-su  i-duk  bu-sa-a-su  il-qi  su-lit  Sa  ram-ui-su  ina  libbi  u-se-li- 
(ma?) 

18  arki  su-lit-su  u  sar-ri  ina  libbi  ib-si. 

19  §attu  10kan-  Sarru  ina  aiTe-ma  mar  sarri  am61rabuti  u  umma-ni- 
su  ina  matAkkadiki-     Sarru  (ana  Nisani  ana  Babili  la  illi-ku) 

20  Nabu  (ana)  Babili  la  illi-ku,  Bel  la  itta§a-a  isinnu  a-ki-tu  ba-til 
niqe  (ina  E-sag-gil  u  E-zi-da) 

21  ilani  sa  Babili17  u  Bar-sip-ki  ki  sal-mu  iddi-na.     Ina  araxSimani 
umu  21kan    

22  §a  matE-lam-mi-ya  ina  matAkkadiki am61sa-kiri24  ina  Uruk 

23  Sattu    llka«-     Sarru  ina  a'Te-ma-a,  mar  sarri  am61rabuti  u  umman- 
su  ina  matAkkadiki  (Sarru  ana  Nisani  ana  Babili  la  illi-ku) 

24  (Nabu  ana)  Babili7  sarru  ana32  Bel  la  itta^a-a  isinnu  a-ki-tu  ba-til 
niq(e  ina  E-sag-gil  u  E-zi-da) 

25  (ilani  sa)  Babili7  u  (Bar-sip  ki  sal-inn)  iddi-na 

About  19  lines  wanting.     Of  reverse  about  17  lines  wanting. 

Column  III, 


2 se  Istar  Uruk. . . , 

3     ilani  sa  mat  tam-(tim) . 

4 


.....................  Pl-ni  ...... 

5  (Sattu   17kanO  ........................................  Nabu  istu 

Bar-sipki  ana  a§i-e.  .  .  . 

6  ........  ...................  ab  sarru  ana  E-tur-kalam-ina  erub.25 

Ina  ..................... 

7  ..........................  tam-tim  sapli26-tum    ?-bal-ki-tum  .  . 

sit  .................. 

8  (Nabu  ana  Babili  illi-ku?)  Bel  itta§a-a  isinnu5  a  ki-tu  ki  sal-mu 
ep-su.    Ina  arax  .............. 


22  UD-KIB-NUN. 

23  SA. 

24  MAT  (KUR). 

26  TU. 

»e  BAL. 


89 

The  month  Nisan.     The  fifth  day.     The  mother  of  the  king  died  in     13 

Diirkarasu.  which  is  on  the  bank  of  the  Euphrates  above  Sippar. 

The  son  of  the  king  and  his  army  mourned  three  days,  a  lamenta-     14 

tion  took  place.     In  Sivan,  in  Akkad 

a  lamentation  for  the  mother  of  the  king  took  place.     In  Nisan,     15 

Cyrus,  king  of  Parsu,  collected  his  troops, 

below  Arbela  the  Tigris  he  crossed(?)   In  lyyar,  to  the  land  of. ...     16 

its   king   he   killed,   its   loot  he   took.     His   own   governor! ?)  he     17 

appointed  (lit.  made  go  up)  there. 

Afterward  his  governor  also  became  king  there(?).  18 

The  tenth  year.     The  king  in  Tema  ;  the  son  of  the  king,  the  nobles     19 

and  his  army  in  Akkad.     The  king  (for  Nisan  unto  Babylon  came 

not) 

Nebo  unto  Babylon  came  not,  Bel  was  not  brought  forth  ;  the  New    20 

Year's  festival  remained  unperformed,  sacrifices  (in  Esaggil  and 

Ezida) 

unto  the  gods  of  Babylon  and  Borsippa,  as  is  right,  they  gave.     In    21 

Sivan,  the  twenty-first  day 

of  the  Elamite(?)  in  Akkad the  representative  in  Erech. . .     22 

The  eleventh  year.     The  king  in  Tema;  the  son  of  the  king,  the    23 
nobles  and  his  army  in  Akkad.     (The  king  for  Nisan  unto  Babylon 
came  not) 

(Nebo  unto)  Babylon  (came  not).     Bel  was  not  brought  forth,  the    24 
New  Year's  festival  remained  uncelebrated,  sacrifices  (in  Esaggil 
and  Ezida 

to  the  gods  of)  Babylon  and  (Borsippa,  as  is  right),  they  gave 25 

(About  19  lines  wanting.     Of  reverse,  about  17  lines  wanting.) 

Column  III. 

..the  Tigris..,  1 


Istar  of  Erech 2 

.  .gods  of  the  land  of  the  sea. 3 

4 


Pl-ni 

(The  seventeenth  year) Nebo  from  Borsippa      5 

to  go  forth 

ab  the  king  unto  Eturkalamma  entered  in  the      6 

month .... 

of  the  lower  sea,  rebelled(?)      7 


(Nebo  came  unto  Babylon?)     Bel  was  brought  forth.     The  New      8 
Year's  festival  they  celebrated,  as  is  right.     In  the  month .... 


90 

!)     ilani  sa  Marad27-daki  lluZa-ma-ma  u  ilani  sa  Kiski  Belit  u  ilani 

10  sa  Xar-sag-kalam-ma  ana  Babili17  erubu-ni.     Adi28  ket29  a™xUluli 
ilani  samatAkkadiki 

11  sa  eli  same  u  sapla30  same  ana  Babili7  erubu-ni  ilani  sa  Bar-sipki 


12  u    Sip-parki   la    erubu-ni.      Ina    araxDuzi    mKu-ras    gal-  turn    ina 
Upe-31kl  ina  mux-(xi) 

13  narSal  sal-lat  ana  libbi  umma-ni  raatAkkadiki  ki  epu-su  nise  matAk- 
kadiki  (ki  epu-su  nise  matAkkadiki>32 

14  BAL  ki  uqtaggir33  nise   iduk.34    Umu  14    Sipparki  ba-la  gal-turn 
ga-bit. 

15  Nabu-na'id  ixliq.35    Umu   16    mUg-ba-ru   amelpaxat  mat(>u.ti.um 
u  gabe  mKu-ras  ba-la  gal-turn 

16  ana  Babili7  erub.     Arki  Nabu-na'id  ki  irtaka36-sa  ina  Babili7  ga-bit. 
Adi28  ket29  arxi   masaktuk-kume 

17  sa  matGru-ti-um  babani  sa  E-sag-gil  isxuru37  be-la  sa  mim-ma  ina 
E-sag-gil  u  ekurrati 

18  ul  is-sa-kin  u  si-ma-nu  ul  eteti38-iq.     Araxsamna  umu  3kan-   mKu- 
ras  ana  Babili7  erub.25 

19  Xa-ri-ni-e  ina  pani-su  irpudu39-ni.     Su-lum  anaali  sa-kin.    mKu-ras 
su-lum  ana  Babili17 

20  gab-bi-su  qi-bi.    mGu-ba-ru  am61paxati-su   am61paxata  ina  Babili7 
ip-te-qid 

21  u  ultu  araxKisilimi  adi  araxAddari  ilani  sa   matAkkadiki  sa  mNa- 
bu-na'id20  ana  Babili7  u-se-ri-du-(ma) 

22  a-na  ma-xa-ze-su-nu  ituru40-ni.     Araxsamna  musu  umi  llkan  mUg- 
ba-ru  ina  eli  ---- 

23  ........  mar41  sarri41  usma42-at.     Ultu27  sa  araxAddari  adi  umi  3  sa 

araxNisani  bi-ki-tum  ina  matAkkadiki  ........ 

24  nise   gab-bi   qaqqad-su-nu  ilbinuni.43     Umu    4kan  mKam-bu-zi-ya 
maru  sa    mKu-ras 

27  AMAR-da. 

as  EN. 

29  BE. 

so  KI.  TA. 

31  UT. 

32  Repetition  clearly  due  to  a  scribal  error.    See  also  Col.  II.  1.  24.  •  sarru  ana.' 

as  SAR.  SAR.    For  value  'qacaru,'  see  Brtinnow,  4317.    This  reading  was  suggested 
first  by  Hagen. 
34  GAZ. 
ss  XA-A. 

36  LAL. 

37  N1GIN. 

38  LU. 

3-JDAG. 
«  GUR-ME. 

41  Hagen. 

42  BE.    (Hagen.) 

43  GABi'i- 


91 

the  gods  of  Maradda,  the  god  Zatnaraa  and  the  gods  of  Kis,  Beltis      9 

and  the  gods 

of  Harsagkalamma  entered  into  Babylon.     Until  the  end  of  Elul,     10 

the  gods  of  Akkad, 

those  who  are  above  as  well  as  those  below  the  firmament,  entered     11 

into  Babylon.     The  gods  of  Borsippa,  Kutu 

and  Sippar  entered  not.     In  the  month  Tammuz  when  Cyrus  gave     12 

battle  in  Opis  (and  ?)  on  the 

Salsallat  to  the  troops  of  Akkad,  the  people  of  Akkad  he  subdued,     13 


whenever  they  collected  he  slew  the  people.     On  the  14th  day  Sip-     14 

par  was  taken  without  battle. 

Xabonidus  fled.     On  the  16th  day  Gobryas  the  governor  of  Gutium     15 

and  the  troops  of  Cyrus  without  battle 

entered  into   Babylon.      Afterward,  Nabonidus  although  he  had    16 

shut  himself  tip(??),  was  taken  prisoner  in  Babylon.     Until  the  end 

of  the  month,  shields(?) 

of  Gutium  surrounded  the  gates  of  Esaggil.     No  weapons  were  in     17 

Esaggil  and  in  the  other  temples 

and  no  standard  had  been  brought  in.     On  Marchesvan  3d,  Cyrus     18 

entered  Babylon. 

The  liarine  la}T  down  before  him.     Peace  was  confirmed  to  the  city.     19 

Cyrus  pronounced  peace  to 

all   Babylon.     Gobryas,  his  governor,  he  appointed  governor  in    20 

Babylon  and 

from  Kislev  until  Adar,  the  gods  of  Akkad,  which  Nabonidus  had    21 

brought  down  to  Babylon, 

unto   their  own   cities  he  returned.     On  the  night  of  the   llth    22 

Marchesvan,  Gobryas  against. . . . 

the  son  of  the  king  he  killed.     From  the  27th  Adar  until  Nisan     23 

3d,  mourning  took  place  in  Akkad 

All  the  people  cast  down  their  heads.     On  the  fourth  day,  when     24 
Cambyses,  son  of  Cyrus  went 


92 

25  a-na    E-SA-PA-KALAM-MA-SUM-MU    Id    illiku   a«>6»pit-xat** 
Nabu  sa  pa . . .    

26  (ki  illi)-ku  ina  qati45  dib-bu  us-bi-nim-ma  ki  qata  Nabu 

27  (as-ma)45-ri-e  u   raa^ispat45?1-  ta 

mar  sarri  ana 

28     Nabu  ana  E-sag-gil  is-xur  luniqe  ina  pan  Bel  u  su 

Column  IV. 

1     

en 

2 

e-ki46mePL 

3     

X47?1-  ik-ta-tur 

4 

(is)-sak-kan  arxu  babu  na-pi-il 

5     

....E-an-nasaUbara48ki 

6     

bit  mu-um-mu  itta§i 

7 

zi 

8 

inaBabili7  * 

9 

Babili17  is-kir-ma 

44Hagen.    Schrader  has   "E.  PA.  Nabfi-??" 

«  Hagen. 

46  Hag-en  reads:  sa  Babil-api- 

•»7  DAN(?) 
48  See  Sb  353. 


93 
to  E-S A-PA-KAL  AM-M A-SUlVf-MU,  the  prefect  of  Nebo  who ....     25 


when  he  went,  in  his  hand  a  message  he  brought,  when  the  hands  26 

of  Xcbo 

javelins  and  quivers the  son  of  the  king  unto 27 

Nebo  turned  to  Esaggil,  sacrifices  before  Bel  and 28 

Column  IV. 

1 

en 

2 

3 

4 

....  the  gate  was  destroyed, 

5 

unto  E-anna  from 

6 

from  the  Bit-mummu  he  went  forth. 

7 

zi 

8 

in  Babylon. 

9 

he  shut  up  Babylon. 


94 


THE   ANNALS   OF    NABONIDUS. 

COMMENTARY. 

Column  1. 

L.  6.  'kimatsunu;'  'kimtu  '—family,  from  'kamu  '  to  bind,  is  a  synonym 
of  *  xammu '  and  '  altu,'  both  meaning  family.  '  Xammu,'  which  occurs 
in  the  famous  name  '  Xammurabi,'  is  a  derivative  from  the  stem  '  xam- 
amu '  =  to  bind  or  fix  firmly.  See  E.  J.  Harper,  Beitrage,  ii.  412  ;  '  lux- 
mum  '  construed  with  '  tereti  '  =  oracles.  Of.  also  V  R.  43.  36d.  and 
II  R.  57.  27  cd.,  cited  by  him,  and  compare  further  Haupt's  Texts,  p. 
36.  1.  882,  where  'xammu'  is  explained  by  the  same  ideogram  as 
'ecedu'  =bind,  surround,  gather.  (See  also  Zimmern,  Busspsalmen, 
81  and  Delitzsch,  Kossaeans.  72  rem.  2.)  Another  derivative  of  this 
stem  is  '  xammamu' =region,  enclosed  district,  I  R.  Sargon  Barrel- 
Cylinder  1.  9.  (Lyon's  Sargon.  66.  9.).  'altu,'  the  second  synonym  of 
'  kimtu '  is  a  rare  word  from  the  stem  ^HN  =  to  settle,  and  must  be 
carefully  distinguished  from  '  altu '  =  '  assatu  '  =wife-  For  this  word 
and  the  passages  where  it  is  found,  see  Jager,  Beitrage,  ii.  303. 

For  the  ideogram  '  im-ri-a '  =  '  kimtu '  cf.  Belser,  Beitrage  ii.  137  : 
I  R.  70.  c.  II  1.  2.  In  IV  R.  10.  37.  b.,  however,  we  find  l  im-ri-a '= 
'  rusumtu,'  marsh.  See  Brunnow,  List,  8396  if. 

L.  10.  'Ammananu.'  Hommel  thinks  this  is  identical  with  the  Baby- 
lonian-Elamitic  'Amnanu  '  (See  Lehmann,  Samassumukin,  p.  76.  rem. 
2).  For  'Amnanu,'  probably  near  the  border  of  Elam,  see  1.  c.  40  and 
76.  Hagen — Beitrage  ii.  235 — reasoning  from  Tig.  Jun.  rev.  76  and 
Sennach.  Kuj.  4.  12,  believes  that  'Ammananu  '  of  the  Annals  was  a 
part  of  Lebanon.  It  appears  impossible  to  decide  at  present  whether  it 
was  an  Elamitic  or  Palestinian  mountain. 

L.  11.  '  gippatu ' — some  sort  of  tree  or  reed,  for  whose  cultivation 
water  was  needed,  as  it  was  planted  by  the  side  of  canals — cf.  Hebr. 
n^^OV  anc^  *n  ^^s  connection,  Jensen,  Zeitschr.  fiir  Assyriologie,  iii. 
317,  85  and  Hagen,  op.  cit.,  p.  236. 

L.  19.  I  have  followed  Hagen's  reading  GAZA  instead  of  Winckler's 
'  sigisse'  =  'niqu.' 

Column  77. 

L.  2.  'Istumegu'  =  Astyages.  The  Median  empire,  an  outline  of 
whose  history  has  been  given  above,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Persians 
in  about  the  year  549  B.  C.  According  to  this  account  which  probably 
belongs  to  the  sixth  year  of  Nabonidus,  the  Median  army  rebelled 
against  Astyages  their  king  and  delivered  him  over  to  Cyrus,  king  of 
the  tributary  state  of  Ansan  (See  Cyr.  Cyl.  note  to  1.  21.).  The  latter 


95 

tln-ii  marched  upon  and  plundered  Ecbatana  the  Median  capital,  soon 
-. -i  ting  possession  of  the  entire  empire. 

A-tyaiM's  was  the  son  of  the  great  Cyaxares,  conqueror  of  Nineveh. 
About  the  ultimate  fate  of  Astyages  there  are  various  accounts.  Ac- 
cording to  Herodotus  1.  130,  Cyrus  kept  him  prisoner,  but  did  not  mal- 
tn-at  him.  The  only  author,  as  far  as  I  know,  who  asserted  that  the 
Median  kinu  was  killed  by  Cyrus,  was  Isocrates  in  his  funeral  oration  on 
KvuLioras,  king  of  Salamis  (See  Oration,  9.  38.  where  it  is  asserted  that 
Cyrus  killed  the  father  of  his  mother,  which  is  probably  an  allusion  to 
Astyuircs.  with  regard  to  whose  relationship  to  Cyrus,  we  may  suppose 
that  Isocrates  followed  Herodotus.)  According  to  Ctesias,  Cyrus 
treated  Astyages  like  a  father  and  sent  him  to  a  distant  province. 
Some  years  later,  being  summoned  to  court,  Astyages  was  left  behind 
in  a  desert  by  the  Persian  servants  of  Cyrus  who  thus  thought  to  do 
their  master  a  service  (cf.  Persica,  §  5). 

Astyages  has  survived  in  the  tradition  of  the  East  under  the  name  of 
'  bc^v!  '  or  in  Armenian  'Adjiahak.'  Moses  of  Chorene,  Hist.  Armen. 
edition.  Whiston,  p.  77,  gives  the  form  'Dahak.'  Lenormant  explained 
the  name  as  meaning  'biting  serpent,'  a  translation  rightly  rejected 
by  Oppert.  Weisbach,  Achaui.  Inschr.  zweiter  Art.  p.  20,  remarks 
that  such  an  epithet  would  be  more  befitting  a  chief  of  the  Sioux 
Indians  than  a  great  king  !  Weisbach  derives  the  name  from  the 
Aryan  stem  ;  arsti ' — lance  and  'yuga,'  a  formation  from  the  well 
known  stem  'yuj,'  several  of  whose  numerous  meanings  may  be  under- 
stood in  this  connection  ; — thus,  '  be  connected  with,  set  in  motion,' 
etc.  The  name  may  mean  l  he  who  wields  a  lance  '(?).  Winckler,  with- 
out sufficient  reason,  regarded  Astyages  as  neither  a  Mede  nor  a 
descendant  of  Cyaxares,  but  as  a  Scyth  who  with  his  barbarous  hordes 
had  gotten  possession  of  Media  (Untersuchungen,  pp.  124  ff.).  For 
the  fall  of  the  Median  power  under  Astyages,  cf.  among  others  Biidin- 
ger,  Ausgang  des  Medischen  Reiches,  1880. 

L.  3.  'Agamtanu  ' — see  Keilinschr.  und  das  alte  Testament,  378.  524. 
598.  The  'g'  was  evidently  pronounced  like  Arabic  'ghain,'  as  seen 
from  KnOfTK  •  (See  Haupt,  Assyr.  E  Vowel,  p.  12,  note.) 

L.  5.  'Tema'.  Evidently  not  a  quarter  of  Babylon,  (Hommel, 
Gesch.  779 ;  Pinches,  Transactions  of  the  Society  for  Biblical  Archae- 
ology, vii.  152)  but  a  place  at  some  distance  from  the  capital.  The 
king  would  hardly  have  stopped  so  long  in  a  quarter  of  the  city  without 
attending  the  yearly  feast  of  Marduk.  Tiele  s  conjecture  (Gesch.  470. 
n.  1)  that  Terna  was  probably  not  in  Akkad,  because  it  is  especially 
stated  that  the  king  was  in  Tema  and  the  son  of  the  king  in  Akkad, 
seems  improbable,  because  Akkad  was  the  general  name  for  all  Baby- 
lonia ( See  Lehmann,  Samassumukin,  71  f.)  It  is  not  possible  at  present 
to  determine  the  exact  situation  of  Tema. 

L.  6.  '  isinnu  akitu.'  See  also  Pinches'  Texts,  15.  No.  4.  7.  The 
New  Year's  festival  or  'zagmuku,'  (='re§  satti,'  n^'H  5P&O).  See 


96 

East  India  House  Inscription,  VII.  23  '  ina  isinim  zagmuku';  'isiiniu,' 
pi.  '  isinate'  (see  I  R.  66.  3.  7.)=  festival,  probably  from  a  stem  v/?DN  • 
Cf.  'Assinnu '  a  sort  of  priest,  II  11.  32.  22.  ef.  =  ideogram  UK.  SAL. 
(cf.  also  IV  R.  31.  12.)  UK  SAL,  is  also  explained  II  R.  36.  49  e,  by 
sibku  §a  pi'  =  ' weeping  or  lamenting(?)  with  the  niouth.'  May  not 
the  duties  of  the  'Assinnu'  have  been  connected  with  lamentation, 
perhaps  at  funeral  rites(?). 

The  form  '  isittu,'  Sb-  263,  must,  as  Zimmern  remarked,  (Buss- 
psalmen,  31.  n.  1,)  stand  for  'isintu'  a  feminine  formation  from  the 
same  stem  as  '  isinnu.'  For  '  isinnu '  cf.  further  ASKT.  80.  18  ;  V.  31. 
50;  Nimrod  Epic.  75.  6.;  Sennach.  Smith.  119;  Asb.  Smith.  119.  17.; 
126.  77. 

'  akitu ' — perhaps  as  Hagen  points  out,  1.  c.  238,  some  sort  of  sacrifice. 
(See  East  India  House  Inscr.  IV.  7  ;  l  Bit  niqe  akiti  girti.')  It  is  pos- 
sible, as  Hagen  suggests,  that  '  akiti  girti '  in  this  passage  is  in  apposi- 
tion to  and  denotes  a  peculiar  kind  of  '  niqe.' 

For  '  akitu '  see  I  R.  67.  c.  I  35.  and  Pinches'  Texts  17.  7. 

L.  8.  'Urigallu  is-ruq.'  According  to  Sc-  Ib.  10  ff.,  SES.  GAL.  = 
'urigallum'  =  '  massu  biti,'  i.  e.  the  'massu  '  of  the  house  or  temple,  a 
priestly  office  of  very  high  rank.  We  should  compare  here  ASKT.  76. 
18,  where  the  god  Ea  is  called  the  exalted  '  massuV  and  Pinches'  Texts, 
17.  1.  15  if.  where  two  brothers  of  the  king  are  mentioned  a^  being 
endowed  with  the  office  of  SES.  GAL  ;  'Samas-sum-ukin  axi-ya  talime 
ana  sarrut  Kardunyas  usadgila  panussu.  'Asiir-mukin-paleya  axiya 

tardinni  ana   SES.   GAL-ut  ugdallip(?}  ina  pan Asur-etil-same-u- 

erciti-bala(t)su  axiya  cixra  ana  SES.  GAL-ut  pan  Sin  asib  xarrani 
ug-dallip(?).' 

I  prefer  to  adopt  here  the  reading  '  tardinnu '  in  place  of  the  usual 
'  kuddinnu,'  regarding  it  as  a  word  descriptive  of  close  relationship, 
probably  meaning  elder  brother,  and  as  a  derivative  of  the  stem  '  radu  '  = 
'  to  copulate.'  Compare  '  radu '  and  '  ridu '  synonyms  of  '  maru '  child, 
II  R.  30.  No.  3.  1.  30 ff.  'Tardinnu'  must  be  considered  a  similar 
formation  to  '  terdinnu  '  II  R.  30.  No.  3.  46.  The  exact  force  of  the 
three  words  '  talijnu,'  '  tardinnu,'  and  '  cixru '  in  the  inscription  of 
Asurbanipal  just  cited  is  by  no  means  clear.  Lehmann,  Saniassumu- 
kin,  L3.  12,  translates  '  tardinnu '  which  he  reads  '  kuddinnu,'  by 
'  unrechtmassig '  and  p.  30  by  '  unebenburtig.'  Tiele  in  his  review 
of  Lehmann,  Ztschr.  fiir  Assyriologie,  vii.  p.  76  prefers  to  regard  the 
three  words  as  indicative  of  grades  of  rank(?). 

The  real  meaning  of  '  urigallum  '  is  probably  elder  brother.  See  IV 
R.  58.  33.  where  the  ideogram  SES.  GAL  occurs  in  parallel  with  '  NIX. 
GAL-ti '  =  'axati  rabiti'  —  elder  sister,  and  II  R.  29.  63.  bff.,  where  we 
find  SES.  GAL.  =  '  urigallum '  compared  with  '  tardinnu  '  and  '  dub- 
bussu.'  For  the  phonetic  reading  'u-ri-gal-lum,'  see  Scb-  1.  13,  where 
we  find  it  descriptive  of  the  ideogram  MAS.  MAS. 

L.  10.  Winckler  has  omitted  '  sarru  '  before  '  ana  Nisani.' 


97 

L.  13.  '  Diirkarasu  '—also  to  be  found  II  R.  52.  No.  2.  651.    (Hagen.) 

L.  15.  'Parsu'— see  Behistun  1.  14.  41 ;  2.  47.  In  the  inscriptions  of 
the  second  sort  we  find  the  form  '  Parsin  '  (See  Weisbach — Achame- 
niden  Inschriften  zweiter  Art.  106.).  'Parsu  '  in  the  Annals  appears  to 
have  been  used  synonymously  with  'Ansan.'  Thus,  Cyrus  seems  to 
have  been  called  indifferently  by  the  Babylonians  either  'King  of  An- 
san  '  or  of  '  Parsu.'  Compare  Annals  c.  II.  1.  1  and  1.  15  and  see  also  in 
this  connection,  Amiaud,  Melanges  Ilenier  246.  265). 

Whether  the  name  '  Parsua  '  (Parsuas)  which  in  early  days  seems  to 
have  been  applied  either  to  Northern  Media  or  to  some  part  of  that 
territory,  (see  Tiele,  Gesch.  27.  195.  241.  193.  203.  and  Hommel,  Gesch. 
719.  739-  740.  744)  can  be  identified  with  the  later  'Parsu'  =  Persia, 
must  remain  a  matter  of  doubt.  Tiele  (Gesch.  304)  suggested  that  the 
name  '  Parsua  '  may  have  been  applied  to  Persia  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Sennacherib.  It  does  not  seem  impossible  that  the  old  'Parsua'  may 
have  been  the  home  of  Persian  tribes,  who,  migrating  to  the  South, 
carried  the  name  to  the  regions  about  Elam  ;  i.  e.  to  the  Elamitic  Ansan. 
H.  H.  Howarth  in  the  Academy.  No.  1035,  p.  231  (1892)  argued  with 
some  reason,  however,  that  the  Persian  tribes  could  not  have  occupied 
Parsua  long,  or  we  would  find  Aryan  words  in  Assyrian,  because  the 
Assyrians,  as  is  well  known,  overran  and  occupied  the  country  in  early 
times.  In  Academy,  No.  1041,  p.  373,  he  mentions  as  additional  evidence 
that  the  geographical  and  personal  names  of  '  Parsua '  are  not  Aryan. 
It  is  practically  impossible  at  present  to  determine  the  original  habitat 
of  the  Persians.  It  is  not  unlikely,  however,  as  Amiaud  has  suggested, 
(Melanges  Renier,  246)  that  the  names  'Ansan'  and  'Parsu'  after  the 
Persian  invasian  of  the  former  territory  became  synonymous  in  much 
the  same  manner  as  Gaul  and  France,  Britain  and  England. 

L.  16.  '  Diqlat  irab.'  According  to  the  latest  collation  by  Hagen 
(Beitr.  ii.  240)  the  sign  '  rab '  is  clear.  The  meaning  c  crossed  '  is  there- 
fore by  no  means  certain  although  to  be  expected.  The  form  may 
signify  'approached.'  The  only  other  forms  at  all  similar  to  this  are 
those  cited  by  Hagen;  viz.,  Beitrage  ii.  61.  'erabuni'  and  Winckler, 
Keilschrifttexte,  33.  '  irabbanni '  =  '  entrusted  to  me.' 

It  has  been  conjectured  that  this  passage  is  a  reference  to  the  Lydian 
campaign,  the  only  great  victory  between  the  sixth  and  tenth  years  of 
Nabonidus  for  which  the  Tigris  would  have  to  be  crossed.*  The 
advancer  of  this  theory  evidently  forgot  that  fully  two  months  would 
have  been  necessary  for  the  Persians  to  go  to  the  Halys,  whereas 
according  to  the  cuneiform  account,  Cyrus  collected  his  troops  in 
Nisan  (March-April)  and  entered  the  enemy's  country  in  lyar  (May- 

*  Compare  Floigl,  Cyrus  und  Herodot,  125,  who  supplies  'Isparda,'  =  Sardis  for  the 
name  of  the  place.  Unger,  however,  Kyaxares  und  Astyages,  p.  6,  objects  quite 
rightly  that  the  form  '  Isparda '  is  not  the  Babylonian  form,  which  would  have  been 
'Saparda.'  'Isparda'  is  the  form  found  in  the  Achaemenian  Inscriptions  of  the 
•  second  sort.' 

13 


98 

June).  The  short  space  of  time  occupied  on  the  march  shows  conclu- 
sively that  the  object  of  the  attack  cannot  have  been  Lydia,  but  was 
probably  some  country  necessary  as  a  basis  of  operations  against  that 
kingdom.  Because  of  the  doubtful  meaning  of  '  irab,1  there  is  even  no 
authority  for  supposing  that  this  place  is  on  the  west  bank  of  the 
Tigris,  as  did  Evers,  Emporkommen  der  persischen  Mac-lit,  9.  n.  1.  All 
that  we  can  say  is  that  the  land  to  which  Cyrus  went,  must  have  been 
below  Arbela,  not  far  from  the  Tigris.  Certainly  neither  Meyer's 
idea,  that  this  is  a  reference  to  the  battles  in  the  Median  provinces 
west  of  the  Euphrates,  Gesch.  p.  603,  nor  Winckler  s  conclusion  that 
the  country  was  Singara  or  some  independent  state  between  the  rivers, 
is  satisfactory  (See  Untersuchungen,  13l). 

L.  17.  l  Sulit  sa  ramnisu.'  His  own  governor ;  probably  a  shaphel 
feminine  formation  of  '  elii  '  =  to  go  up.  '  Sulit '  would  mean  '  one  who 
is  set  up  or  appointed,'  with  feminine  ending  as  in  ;  pixatu  '  =  prefect, 
governor.  Hagen  translates  in  this  passage  'garrison,'  citing  Assyr. 
Wbrterbuch,  427.  11  ff.  where  Delitzsch  demonstrates  that  ' sulu '  can 
mean  'bring  soldiers  into  a  fortress.'  We  may  note  here,  that  the 
words  '  salutu,'  V  II.  11.  11  f.,  and  '  sulutu,'  Sennach.  c.  IV.  48.  =  lord- 
ship, usually  understood  as  derivatives  from  '  salu  "  to  decide  (Xim- 
mern,  Busspsalmen,  p.  99),  may  be  regarded  equally  well  as  abstract 
formations  from  the  shaphel  of  '  elu/ 

L.  22.  'Elammiya'  =  Elamite.  I  have  adopted  Hagen's  translation 
here  as  being  preferable  to  the  attempts  of  former  translators  who 
understood  the  word  as  denoting  'Elam'  (see  Say  ce,  Fresh  Light; 
Floigl,  Cyrus  und  Herodot.  58  ;  Halevy,  Melanges,  2.  etc.).  I  know  no 
other  example  of  a  gentilic  ending  '  ya.' 

This  mutilated  passage  may  indicate  that  there  was  an  invasion  of 
the  Persians  from  the  side  of  Elam,  possibly  directed  against  Erech- 
linger,  Kyax.  und  Astyages,  7,  believed  this  passage,  11.  21-22,  to  refer 
to  the  invasion  of  Lydia.  The  situation  of  Erech  so  far  to  the  south- 
west, however,  would  preclude  the  possibility  of  an  attack  on  Lydia 
from  this  quarter. 

L.  23-4.  See  Delitzsch's  opinions  as  given  by  Hagen  regarding  the 
restoration  of  these  lines.  It  is  of  course  impossible  to  conjecture 
with  any  certainty  to  what  events  the  lines  missing  between  Cols.  II. 
and  III.  referred.  Hagen  suggested  with  some  show  of  reason  that  the 
Lydian  campaign  may  have  been  here  described.  We  have  seen  that 
the  country  alluded  to  in  1.  16  cannot  have  been  Lydia.  (See  above 
note  to  Col.  II.  16.)  It  seems  probable,  therefore,  there  being  no  other 
place  in  the  Annals  for  the  allusion,  that,  if  there  were  any  reference  to 
the  Lydian  war  in  this  account,  it  would  have  been  just  before  the 
description  of  the  capture  of  Babylon  ;  i.  e.  just  before  Col.  III.  I 
cannot  agree  with  Winckler's  conclusion  that,  because  the  chronicle 
gives  no  account  of  any  hostilities  in  the  seventh  and  eighth  years  of 
Nabonidus'  reign,  the  Lydian  campaign  must  have  taken  place  during 


99 

those  years.  If  the  Annals  were  completely  preserved  we  should  cer- 
tainly expect  to  find  mention  made  of  so  important  a  campaign  as  the 
Lydian.  It  seems  permissible  to  suppose  that  the  records  of  the 
seventh  and  eighth  years  are  silent,  because  no  events  of  any  impor- 
tance occurred  at  that  time.  We  may  be  allowed  therefore,  pending 
further  discoveries,  to  place  the  Lydian  campaign  as  late  as  from  the 
twelfth  to  the  sixteenth  year  of  Nabonidus  and  to  conclude  that  the 
account  of  it  in  the  Annals  is  lost  with  the  missing  lines  at  the  end  of 
Col.  II. 

Column  HI. 
L.  7.  'tamtam  BAL-tum'  =  'saplitum.'     For  this  use  of  BAL  cf. 

II  11.  30.  3.  c.  'An-ta-bal-ki'  =  'elituni  u  sapiltuui ;  in  II.  62.  63a.  ki- 
an-bal  =  ditto  (sa-pil-tum  ?)  u  e-li-tum. 

L.  9.  'Sar  Marad-da.'  For  'Marad-da'  see  Delitzsch,  Wo  lag  das 
Paradies,  220  and  for  'Kis'  op.  cit.  p.  218.  'Zamama'  was  evidently 
from  this  passage  and  the  following,  the  chief  deity  of  'Kis.'  The 
reading  is  still  uncertain.  For  the  name  compare  II.  61.  52 f.  'bit  za- 
nia-ina  sa  Kis,'  written,  however,  with  the  character  'ma,'  'mal,'  'ga.' 
According  to  II  R.  57.70,  this  deity  is  equivalent  to  Adar  (Ninib). 
(See  further  Biiinnow,  List,  No.  11761.)  The  only  compound  known  to 
me  in  which  the  name  occurs,  is  the  proper  name,  t  Zamamanadinsumu  ' 
king  of  Babylon  and  contemporary  of  'Asurdan,  the  grandfather  of 
Tiulath-pileser  L  (See  Tiele,  Geschichte,  104,  148.) 

L.  10.  '  Xarsagkalama  '  was  the  centre  of  culture  for  the  old  'sarrut 
kibriit  erbitti.'  Salmanassar  II.  and  Tiglath-pileser  III.  offered  sacri- 
fices there.  (See  Lehuiann,  '  Sauiassuuiukin,'  95,  97,  98  and  Delitzsch, 
Paradies,  219). 

'Ketum.'  See  II  R.  35.  62.  c.  =  '  ki-i-tuui.'  (Brunnow,  List,  No. 
1513.) 

L.  11.  'sa  eli  same  u  sapla  same.'  It  is  perfectly  possible  to  read 
'  IM  here  a>  in  II  11.  .")<).  '2'.\.  where  it  is  explained  by  'sa-mu-u'  = 
heaven.  Hagen  reads  it  as  '  saru  =  wind,  and  translates  the  passage  ; 

' Akkad  of  the  part  above  as  well  as  that  below  the  '  Windrieh- 

tung(?),'  referring  the  relative  '  sa '  to  'Akkadi.'  (See  Beitrage,  ii.  p. 
243.)  It  seems  to  me,  however,  possible  to  understand  '  sa '  as  refer- 
ring to  'ilani.'  Hagen's  objection  to  the  translation,  'above  and  below 
the  atmosphere,'  applied  to  images  of  the  deities,  does  not  really  hold 
good.  Why  may  the  reference  not  be  to  the  images  of  the  It  if/her  and 
tower  gods  ;  i.  e.  of  those  above  and  those  below  the  vault  of  the 
heaven  ?  (For  the  Babylonian  heaven,  see  Jensen,  Kosmologie,  pp. 
4-16.) 

L.  12.  '  Upeki  =  '  Opis.'  So  Pinches — see  literature  cited  by  Hagen, 
Beitrage,  ii.  243/244  and  note  1.  Hoinniel,  Gesch.  785  read  'Kis;' 
others  '  Rutu,'  a  place  in  S.  Babylonia.  So  Halevy,  Melanges,  3 ; 
Sayce,  Fresh  Light,  171,  and  formerly  Pinches,  Transactions,  vii.  174. 
n.  1.  (See  also  Budinger,  op.  cit.  12  ;  Evers,  op.  citj.  13.  n.  1.) 


100 

1  Salsallat.'  The  situation  of  this  canal(?)  is  doubtful.  It  seems 
probable  according  to  Hagen  that  the  first  conflict  took  place  at  Opis, 
after  which  the  Babylonians  under  Belsarugur  retired  to  the  l  Salsallat,' 
where  they  were  defeated. 

L.  14.  With  regard  to  the  reading  of  'BAL,'  I  fully  agree  with 
Hagen,  op.  cit.,  244. 

L.  15.  Gutium,  according  to  Delitzsch,  Paradies,  233,  was  the  upper 
region  of  the  Adhem  and  Diyala.  Compare  in  this  connection  the 
tablet  cited  by  Hagen,  8 1-7-27- 22  which  plainly  places  Gutium  between 
Akkad  and  Elani.  The  province  may  have  included  the  sources  of  the 
Adhem.  The  Guti  were  nomads  on  the  Assyro-Babylonian  border  in 
Asurbanipal's  time.  (See  Tiele,  Gesch.  378.)  'Agumkakrime  '  refers 
in  V  11.  33.  c.  1.  38.  to  '  Alman  sar  mat  Gu-ti-i  nise  saklati,'  for  whom 
see  Delitzsch,  Paradies,  205.  (Keilinschr.  <BibL,  iii.  1.  137.) 

L.  16.  '  tukku  '  =  shield  is  possibly  from  4/'  taku  '  =  to  lift  up,  syno- 
nym of  '  nasu.'  (See  Delitzsch,  Beitrage,  i.  198.)  It  seems  to  be  a 
form  like  l  surru '  =  beginning,  from  |/'  saru.'  The  '  su  '  before  the 
word  is,  as  Hagen  points  out,  merely  the  determinative  for  skin  or 
leather,  of  which  shields  were  made.  The  former  reading  '  sutukku ' 
was  as  incorrect  as  the  reading  '  sunadi  in  I  R.  Sennach.  III.  80,  for 
'  sunade,'  where  '  su '  is  '  masku,'  determinative,  and  '  nade  '  is  plural  of 
'  nadu '  =  "tfO  =  bottle,  i.  e.  leather  bottles. 

L.  17.  The  troops  of  Gobryas  had  surrounded  the  temples,  perhaps  to 
prevent  any  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  Babylonians  who  might  organize 
a  rebellion  to  use  the  temples  and  shrines  as  storehouses  for  arms.  The 
exact  sense  of  the  line  is  not  clear.  Tiele,  Geschichte,  472.  n.  3, 
believed  that  the  remnant  of  the  Babylonian  party  had  taken  refuge  in 
the  great  temple  of  Esaggil  which  was  consequently  besieged  by  troops 
of  Gutium.  The  idea  of  Pinches,  Transactions,  and  Sayce,  Fresh 
Light,  171,  that  this  passage  records  a  rebellion  of  the  troops  of 
Gutium  against  Cyrus  is  most  improbable. 

'  be  -la  '  =  weapons.  See  I  R.  66.  c.  III.  13.  'bi-e-la-a.'  The  usual 
plural  form  is  of  course  '  bele,'  cf.  I  R.  47.  c.  VI  48  ;  IV  R.  48.  1.  a  ;  V 
R.  5.  62. 

•  L.  18.  'sirnanu'  means  standard;  cf.  Sennach.  Prism.  V  78-79; 
'  kima  mixi  gabsi  sa  samutum  simani  u  munnisunu  usarda  gir  ergiti 
sadilti ;'  like  a  mighty  storm  of  violent  rain  I  made  their  standards 
and  '  munni '  (weapons  ?)  be  strewn  over  the  wide  earth.  In  connection 
with  the  passage,  11.  17-18  in  the  Annals,  compare  especially  VR.  6.  17. 
'  bele  jqarabi,  siinanu  u  minima  epes  taxazi.'  'Simanu'  is  a  formation 
from  the  stem  '  asamu,'  yk  wasama,'  like  '  lidanu '  from  'aladu,'  yl  walada.' 

L.  19.  'xarine  ina  panisu  irpudiini'  =  the  'xarine'  lay  down  before 
him,  i.  e.  in  homage.  The  word  'xarine'  has  not  yet  been  found  else- 
where. It  may  denote  some  sort  of  officials  or  nobles(?). 

L.  23.  From  a  new  collation  of  the  inscription  Prof.  Friedrich 
Delitzsch  has  recently  explained  this  passage  as  a  record  of  the  slaying 


101 

of  the  king's  son.  He  says  that  at  the  beginning  of  1.  23  he  believes 
that  he  saw  plainly  the  sign  TUR,  before  which,  however,  was  a  very 
narrow  sign  like  '  si '  or  '  sa.'  '  Sa '  being  the  more  probable  reading,  he 
proposes,  pending  further  discoveries,  to  read  '  ina  muxxi  SA;'  i.e. 
"issakin  ;T  i.  e.  he  went  against  and  killed  the  king's  son.  See  Hagen, 
op.  cit.  p.  247. 

The  former  tendency  was  to  refer  this  passage  to  the  death  of  the 
king  or  of  his  wife.  Budinger,  Die  neuentdeckten  Inschriften  iiber 
Cyrus,  14.,  Evers,  Das  Emporkommen  der  persischen  Macht  unter  Cy- 
rus, and  Halevy,  Melanges,  4,  all  considered  this  line  to  refer  to  the 
death  of  Nabonidus.  Meinhold,  Diss.  30.  n.  2,  referred  the  allusion  to 
Belshazzar,  reading  '  the  king  died,'  and  considering  him  king  of  the 
city.  Winckler,  Untersuchungen,  p.  155  gives  traces  of  the  sign  'DA  M 
=  assatu  =  wife  (also  Pinches)  which  would  give  the  reading  '  the  wife 
of  the  king  died.' 

For  discussion  regarding  the  death  of  Belshazzar,  see  above. 

L.  24.  qaqqadsunu  ilbinuni,'  'cast  down  their  heads  in  deep  grief' 
— cf.  the  familiar  '  labanu  appi ' — casting  down  of  the  face  in  worship, 
ASKT., 115,2;  80,14;  V  R.  10.  31 ;  IV  R.  26.  65.  b  ;  also  I  R.  Anp. 
II.  134,  '  ina  labana '  =  '  with  prayer.' 

Column  IV. 

L.  6.  'bit  rnuiumu' — most  probably  the  college  of  sages,  priests  of 
Ea.  attached  to  the  court  and  dedicated  to  Ea  as  god  of  supreme  wis- 
dom ;  cf.  V.  (J5.  32,  where  Nabonidus  speaks  of  having  collected  the 
'enquti  asib  bit  mummu  '  and  IV  23.  n.  1.  c.  IV.  25  ;  '  enuma  alpa  ana  bit 
inu m mu  tuseribu.'  In  the  inscription  of  Merodach-Baladan  II.,  pub- 
lished by  Peiser  and  Winckler,  Keilinschr.  Bibliothek,  iii.  1.  p,  186. 
1.  5.  b,  Ea  himself  is  called  the  '  mumrnu  ban  kala  '  =  source  of  wisdom, 
creating  all  things.  *  Muuiniu  '  is  undoubtedly  the  '  Mwj)//if '  of  Damas- 
cius,  ('  De  primis  principiis,'  Cap.  125).  It  is  probably  a  reduplication 
of  •  mu  '  =  water  i.  e.  rnu  -f  mu  (Haupt).  In  ASKT.  Syl.  513.  we  find 
'mummu'  and  'siqitum'  explained  by  the  same  ideogram.  Ea  being 
the  god  of  the  deep  and  of  wisdom  it  would  be  peculiarly  appropriate 
that  his  sanctuary  be  called  '  the  house  of  the  waters.'  The  term  '  mum- 
mu, then,  by  a  natural  development  of  ideas,  came  to  mean  'wisdom' 
or 'art.'  I  see  no  reason,  therefore,  with  Jensen,  Kosm.  322,  to  dis- 
tinguish two  words  '  mummu  ;'  the  one  being  the  same  stem  as  in  '  um- 
nianu '  =  artisan(?);  i.  e.  JON  •  In  V  28.  63.  gh.  we  find  '  murnmu'  = 
'  bi-el-tum.'  a  word  which  may  be  a  derivative  from  the  stem  v/*?1)!)  = 
be  moist  and  then  plenteous  ;  cf.  bulu  =  cattle,  I  R.  27.  62.  b.;  Tiglath. 
c.  VI.  82.  etc.  The  Hebr.  *?!Q  means  offspring,  '  proventus,'  and 
Assyrian  4bultu  '  =  sexual  power.  (See  ASKT.  81.  10.,  IV  R.  2.  17. 
18.  c.  '  gallu  sa  bultu  la  isii,'  the  demons  who  have  no  sexual  power ; 
also  I  R.  Senn.  VI.  1 ;  East  India  House  Inscr.  c.  IX.  33.  and  Deluge,  1. 
233 — §ubat  bultisu '  =  the  garment  of  his  private  parts.) 


APPENDIX    II. 


TRANSLATION  OF  THE  FIFTH  CHAPTER  OF 
DANIEL.* 

(1)Belshazzara)1,  the  king,  gave  a  great  feastb)2  to  a  thousand  of  his 
lords  and  in  the  presence  of  the  thousand  drank  wine.  <2)Belshazzar 
commanded,  being  under  the  influence  of  the  wine11,  to  bring  the 
vesselsb  of  gold  arid  silver  which  Nebuchadnezzar  his  father  had  taken 
from  the  temple  which  was  in  Jerusalem,  in  order  that  the  king  and 
his  wives0  and  his  concubines  might  drink  out  of  them1.  (3)Then  they 
brought  the  vessels  of  gold  which  they  had  taken  away  from  the  temple 
of  the  house  of  God,  which  is  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  king  and  his  lords, 
his  wives1  and  his  concubines  drank  out  of  them2.  (4)They  drank  wine 
and  praised  the  gods  of  gold  and  silver,  brass,  iron,  wood,  and  stone. 

(5)At  that  same  moment  came  forth'0  fingers  of  a  man's  hand  and 
wrote  opposite101  the  chandelier  on  the  plasterc)2  of  the  wall(1)  of  the 
king's  palace ;  and  the  king  saw  the  haride)  which  wrote.  (6)Theri  the 
king  changed  colora)  and  his  thoughts  terrified  him  and  the  joints  of 
his  hips  were  loosened1  and  his  knees  knocked  one  against  the  other2. 
(7)The  king  called  with  a  loud  voice  to  summon  the  magicians,  the 
Chaldceans1  and  the  horoscopists.  The  king  spoke  and  said  to  the 
wise  men  of  Babylon  that  any  man  who  could  read  this  writing  and 
show  its  interpretation'0  should  wear2  scarlet^  and  a  chain4  of  gold  upon 
his  neck  and  should  rule  as  thirdc)  in  rank  in  the  kingdom5.  (8)Then 
all  the  wise  men  came  in,  but  could  not  read  the  writing  nor  show  its 
interpretation  to  the  king.  (9)Then  the  king  Belshazzar  was  greatly 
disturbed  and  his  color  changed  and  his  lords  were  confounded'1. 

(10)But  the  queen1  entered  the  banquet  hall  by  reason  of  the  exclama- 
tions2 of  the  king  and  his  lords  and  the  queen  spoke  and  said:  0 
King,  live  forever3;  let  not  thy  thoughts  terrify  thee  nor  thy  color  be 
changed.  (11)There  isll)  a  man  in  thy  kingdom  in  whom  is  the  spirit  of 
the  holy  gods  and  in  the  days  of  thy  father  enlightenment  and  under- 
standing and  wisdom  like  the  wisdom  of  the  gods  were  found  in  him, 
and  the  king  Nebuchadnezzar  thy  father  appointed  him  chief  of  the 
hierogrammatistslb),  the  magicians,  the  Chaldeans,  and  the  horoscopists 
— aye  even  the  king  thy  father2.  (12>Because  an  extraordinary  power 
and  knowledge  and  understanding  to  interpret'0  dreams  and  to  show 
hidden  matters  and  to  solve  riddles  were  found  in  Daniel  whom  the 

*  The  numerical  references  refer  to  the  critical  notes  and  the  letters  to  the 
appended  linguistic  remarks. 


103 

king  called  Belteshazzar11');  so  let  Daniel  be  summoned,  in  order  that 
he  may  show  the  interpretation. 

(13)Then  Daniel  was  brought  in  before  the  king  (and)  the  king  spoke 
and  said  :  So  thou  art  Daniel1  of  the  sons  of  the  exiles  of  Judah, 
whom2  the  king  my  father  brought  from  Judjwa.  (14)I  have  heard  con- 
cerning thee  that  the  spirit  of  the  gods  is  in  thee  and  that  enlighten- 
ment and  understanding  and  extraordinary  skill  are  found  in  thee. 
(15)And  now  the  wise  men  (and)1  the  magicians  have  been  brought  in 
before  me,  in  order  that  they  should  read  this  writing  and  make  known 
its  interpretation  to  me,  but  they  are  not  able  to  show  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  thing.  (19)But  I  have  heard  concerning  thee  that  thou  art 
able  to  make  interpretations  and  solve  riddles.  So  if  thou  canst  read 
the  writing  and  make  known  to  me  its  interpretation,  thou  shalt  wear 
scarlet  and  a  chain  of  gold  upon  thy  neck  and  shalt  rule  as  the  third  in 
rank  in  the  kingdom. 

(17)Then  Daniel  answered  and  said  before  the  king  :  Let  thy  gifts  bea) 
to  thyself1  and  give  thy  presents  to  another  ;  yet  I  will  read  the  writing 
for  the  king  and  will  make  known  the  interpretation  to  him2.  (18)0 
King1,  the  Most  High  God  gave  a  kingdom  and  greatness  and  glory  and 
might  unto  Nebuchadnezzar  thy  father2.  (19>And  on  account  of  the 
greatness  which  He  gave  him,  all  peoples,  nations  and  languages  were 
trembling11  and  fearing1'  before  him.  Whomsoever  he  would''  he  killed 
and  whomsoever  he  would  he  kept  alive  ;  and  whomsoever  he  would  he 
exalted  and  whomsoever  he  would  he  brought  low.  (20)But  when  his 
heart  was  high  and  his  spirit  was  haughty  with  pride,  he  was  hurled 
from  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  and  they  took  his  glory  from  him, 
(21)and  he  was  cast  outB)  from  among  the  children  of  men  and  his  reason 
was  made  likeb)  to  the  beasts  and  his  dwelling  was  with  the  herds1.  They 
fed  him  grass  like  oxen  and  his  body  was  moist"  with  the  dew  of  the  heav- 
ens, until  he  discovered  that  the  Most  High  God  is  ruler  over  the  king- 
dom of  men,  and  that  whomsoever  He  will  He  appoints  over  it2.  <22)But 
thou  Belshazzar  his  son  hast  not  humbled  thine  heart  although  thou 
knewest  all  this.  (23)But  thou  hast  exalted  thyself  against  the  Lord  of 
the  heavens  and  they  have  brought  the  vessels  of  His  house  before 
thee  ;  and  thou  and  thy  lords,  thy  wives  and  concubines  were  drinking 
wine  from  them,  and  thou  hast  praised  the  gods  of  silver  and  gold,  of 
brass,  iron,  wood,  and  stone,  which  neither  see,  nor  hear,  nor  notice1; 
but  the  God  in  whose  hand  are  thy  life  and  all  thy  paths2,  Him  thou 
hast  not  honored.  ^Then1  the  hand  was  sent  forth  from  Him  and 
this  writing  was  engraved. 

(25)And  this  is  the  writing  which  was  written  :  There  have  been 
counted  a  mina,  a  shekel  and  two  half-minas.1*  (26)This  is  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  thing  :  Mina — God  has  counted  thy  kingdom  and  fin- 
ished it.  (27)Shekel— thou  hast  been  weighed  in  the  balances  and  found 
wanting.  (28)Half-mina — thy  kingdom  has  been  divided  and  given  to 
the  Medes  and  Persians.1 


104 

Belsliazzar  gave  orders  to  clothe1  Daniel  in  scarlet  and  a 
chain  of  gold  about  his  neck  and  that  they  should  proclaim  publicly 
concerning  him  that  he  be  the  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom.  (30)In  that 
same  night  was  Belsliazzar  king  of  the  Chaldeans  slain  (31)and  Darius 
the  Median  received  the  kingdom,  being  sixty-two  years  old. 

COMMENTARY   ON   DANIEL   V. 
CRITICAL,    NOTES. 

Verse  1.  Note  1. — Belshazzar,  as  stated  before,  is  identical  with 
Belsarugur,  the  son  of  Nabonidus  the  last  king  of  Babylon. 

Note  2. — At  such  a  feast  the  king  would  probably  sit  facing  his  lords 
at  a  separate  table ;  cf.  I.  Sam.  20,  25  where  the  king  sat  during  his 
meal  on  a  special  seat  by  the  wall,  and  in  this  connection,  see  also  fig. 
33  in  Kaulen's  Assyrien  und  Babylonien,  p.  54,  representing  an  Assyr- 
ian king  taking  his  meal  surrounded  by  his  servants  and  protected  by 
the  gods.  According  to  Athenaeus,  Deipnosophistae,  Bk.  IV.  26  on 
the  authority  of  Heraclides  of  Cuma  in  the  second  part  of  his  Paras- 
keuastika,  this  was  also  the  custom  of  the  Persian  kings  at  festivals. 
(Cf.  v.  Lengerke,  Daniel,  p.  243.)  Posidonius  (100  B.  C.)— De  Parth.  I. 
v.  in  Athen.  4.  38,  quoted  Pusey,  383  n.  2— gives  the  same  account  of  the 
Parthian s.  For  ancient  customs  regarding  the  royal  table  see  further 
Jahn,  Biblical  Archaeology,  transl.  by  Upham  (1849),  §  227.  'In  the 
presence  of  =  before,  facing  them.  Q  has  *ar£wvn.'  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  translate  by  '  propinare  '  with  Bertholdt,  Dan.  364,  Havernick, 
Dan.  174,  etc. 

Verse  2.  Note  1. — The  author  evidently  regarded  this  as  a  ter- 
rible profanation  (see  v.  23).  Havernick's  strange  idea  (Dan.,  175  ff.) 
that  Belshazzar  wished  to  honor  Jehovah  by  using  the  sacred  vessels, 
finds  no  confirmation  in  the  text.  That  the  vessels  were  not  sent  for 
until  the  king  was  well  in  his  cups,  seems  to  show  that  the  author 
wished  to  represent  the  command  as  a  drunken  whim.  These  vessels 
were  brought  to  Babylon  by  Nebuchadnezzar  at  the  time  of  the 
first  capture  of  Jerusalem  (597  B.  C.)  in  the  reign  of  Jeconiah  (II. 
Kings  24.  13),  and  were  restored  by  Cyrus  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign 
at  the  time  of  the  return  of  the  exiles.  (Ezra  1.  7ff.) 

Verse  3.  Note  1. — The  wife  of  the  king  who  held  the  rank  of  queen 
was  among  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians  usually  she  who  bore  the 
first  son.  (Delitzsch-Miirdter,  Geschichte  Babyloniens  und  Assyriensi 
p.  118.)  As  it  is  well  known  that  the  greatest  freedom  of  life  pre- 
vailed at  Babylon,  especially  with  regard  to  the  relations  between  the 
sexes,  there  is  nothing  incongruous  in  the  statement  that  women  were 
present  at  feasts.  According  to  Curtius  5.  5,  they  were  admitted  to 
drinking  bouts.  He  says  with  respect  to  the  shocking  immorality  of 
the  women  at  these  feasts  ;  '  Feminarum  convivia  ineuntium  in  princi- 
pio  modestus  est  habitus  :  dein  summa  quaeque  amicula  exuunt,  paula- 
timque  pudorem  profanant ;  ad  ultimum  (honos  auribus  sit)  ima  cor- 


105 

porum  velamento  projiciunt :  nee  meretricum  hoc  dedecus  est  sed  matro- 
narmu  virginumque  apud  quas  comites  habetur  vulgati  corporis  vilitas.' 

Il-'-ardiiiL:  tlie  Persian  customs  in  this  matter,  accounts  vary.  Ac- 
cording to  Josephus  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  proper  for  women  to 
be  seen  by  strangers.  (See  Antiquities,  xi.  6.  1,  referring  to  Esther  i. 
10-12.  the  refusal  of  Vashti  to  obey  the  king's  command  to  present 
hr-rsolf  before  him  and  his  lords.)  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  record  of 
Esther  can  be  trusted  thus  far,  the  queen  consort  seems  to  have  been 
able  to  invite  men  high  in  rank  to  dine  with  her  and  the  king  (Esther 
v.).  In  Herodotus,  too  (5.  18),  it  is  stated  that  not  only  the  concubines, 
but  also  the  young  wives  were  accustomed  to  be  present  at  Persian 
3.  Plutarch,  however,  asserts  (Sympos.  I.  1.)  that  concubines 
were  allowed  at  feasts  but  not  wives.  (See  Pusey,  Daniel,  382.  n.  2.) 
This  statement  was  applied  to  the  Parthians  by  Macrobius,  Saturnalia, 
Lib.  7.  1.,  cited  by  Havernick,  Dan.  180.  (Compare  Justin,  41.  3). 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  Septuagint  makes  no  mention  of  the 
presence  of  women  in  this  passage  of  Daniel.  Havernick,  Dan.  180, 
thought  that  the  translator  deliberately  omitted  it,  as  being  repugnant 
to  his  ideas  of  propriety. 

Note  2. — Verse  3  is  a  good  example  of  the  repetition  of  the  narrative 
style.  One  codex  omits  it  altogether, — see  Berttfoldt,  Daniel,  368.  n.  4. 

Verse  5.  Note  1. — Opposite  the  light  where  the  writing  could  be 
most  easily  seen. 

There  is  a  double  Greek  translation  of  vv.  1,  4  and  5  (for  the  variants 
see  Pusey.  Daniel.  502).     In  this  verse  the  words  written  on  the  wall 
are  transferred  from  verse  25  and  the  following  interpretation  is  given  : 
'  mane  ' — it  is  numbered  ;  '  phares ' — it  is  taken  away  and,  '  thekel  '- 
it  is  weighed.    (See  note  to  v.  25.) 

Note  2. — A  plain  stucco  work  or  simple  painted  plaster.  In  the  ruins 
of  the  palace  at  Nimroud  a  thin  coating  of  painted  plaster  was  discov- 
ered by  Layard,  the  colors  of  which  when  first  found  were  still  fresh 
and  brilliant.  (Xineveh  2.  203  ;  see  also  Kaulen,  Assyrien  und  Baby- 
lonien,  p.  52  ;  109  ;  262.)  The  interior  of  the  later  Babylonian  houses 
was  frequently  painted,  on  the  lower  half  of  the  wall  more  in  figures, 
but  above  ornamentally.  (See  Reber,  Zeitschr.  fur  Assyriologie,  i.  303). 
That  plaster  mixed  with  ashes  was  used  for  mortar  is  evident  from  the 
ruins  of  Ur  (Mugheir),  but  it  is  probably  a  later  development.  (So 
Reber,  op.  cit.,  145.) 

Plaster  seems  to  have  been  known  also  in  Palestine ;  cf.  Josephus, 
Antiquities,  viii.5.  2.,  describing  Solomon's  palace — 'but  the  other  part 
up  to  the  roof  was  plastered  over  and,  as  it  were,  embroidered  with 
colours  and  pictures.'  (In  this  connection  cf .  Jahn,  op.  cit.,  \  39.) 

The  feast  of  Belshazzar  is  represented  by  the  author  to  be  in  a  room 
or  hall,  and  not  necessarily  in  a  garden  (v.  Lengerke,  247),  or  pavilion 
(Havernick,  181).     Hezel  (cited  Bertholdt,  Daniel,  369)  thought  that  it 
was  in  the  inner  court  of  the  palace  (?). 
14 


106 

Verse  6.  Note  1.—  Some  of  the  interpretations  of  the  older  commen- 
tators are  very  grotesque.  For  example,  Grotius  and  Maldonatus,  under- 
standing 'loins'  as  the  private  parts,  translated  'urina  defluebat.'  It 
may  be  interesting  in  this  connection  to  compare  the  famous  passage  of 
the  prism  inscription  of  Sennacherib  ;  Col.  6.  11.  19,  20,  21  ;  Itarraku 
libbusun  Sinfitisun  ucarrapu  qirib  narkabatisunu  umassiru  ni^usun  ; 
'  Their  heart  failed  them  ;  with  their  urine  they  soiled  their  chariots. 
They  let  their  excrement  fall.'  See  Schrader's  Keilinschriftliche 
Bibliothek,  ii.  pp.  110,  111.  Sanctius  (quoted  Havernick,  Dan.  184) 
thought  that  the  passage  in  Daniel  referred  -to  an  '  emissio  seminis  ' 
from  fear  !  For  the  expression  of  violent  emotions  of  fear  and  suffer- 
ing ascribed  to  the  loins  see  Ezekiel  xxi.  12  : 


ix.  24 

Compare  also  Deut.  xxxiii.  11  :  VOp  D^HD  }T?D"~~i'  e-  Pu*  them  to 
confusion  ;    Isaiah    xxi.    3  :    DH  V  H^llf  H    ^HO    IN^D    f3"^J7 

jn'wiiD  'n1?^  #£&?p  wTniVv  »Vv3  w&  and 

Nahum   ii.  2,  referring  to  'Nineveh  : 


. 

Note  2.  —  Theodotion  omits  the  translation  of  K1/  K1  —  'one  against 
another,'  but  another  version  has  TOVTO  TOVTM.  See  Field,  Hexapla  Cod- 
87. 

Verse  7.  Note  1.  —  The  author  applies  the  term  "Chaldacan"  some- 
times to  the  ruling  people  of  Babylon,  as  in  ch.  iii.  8  ;  v.  30  ;  ix.  1,  but 
much  oftener  uses  the  name,  as  here,  to  denote  a  class  of  magicians,  or 
as  a  general  term  for  all  magicians. 

It  is  a  common  error  to  consider  the  name  Chaldsean  as  synonymous 
with  "  Babylonian  "  or  even  "Old  Babylonian."  The  Chaldaeana  were 
clearly  in  ancient  times  a  people  quite  distinct  from  the  inhabitants  of 
Babylonia.  Their  exact  origin  is  extremely  uncertain.  It  may  be  con- 
jectured with  Winckler  (Untersuchungen,  48),  judging  from  the  Semitic 
character  of  their  proper  names,  that  they  were  a  Semitic  people,  or 
with  Jensen  (see  Lehmann  —  Samassumukin,  p.  173),  that  they  were 
"  Semitised  Sumerians,"  i.  e.  a  non-Semitic  race  which  by  contact  with 
Semitic  influences  had  lost  its  original  character.  It  seems  probable 
that  they  came  first  from  the  South  at  a  very  early  date,  along  the  coast 
of  the  Persian  Gulf.  (For  the  old  opinion  of  Gesenius,  Heeren,  Nie- 
buhr,  etc.,  that  the  Kaldi  came  from  Armenia  and  Kurdistan  and  con- 
quered Babylon  shortly  before  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  see  Tiele, 
Geschichte,  65.).  Having  settled  in  the  region  about  Ur  (.  .  .  11X 
D**lt^3)i  they  began  a  series  of  encroachments  on  the  Babylonians 
proper,  which  after  many  centuries  ended  in  the  Chaldsean  supremacy 
under  Nabopolassar  and  his  successors.  (That  Nabopolassar  was  a 
Chaldnoan,  see  Tiele,  op.  cit.  421;  Winckler,  op.  cit.  60  ff.,  and  for  the 


107 

history  of  the  rise  and  development  of  the  Chaldsean  power,  compare 
Tiele65;  2<>7  :  211;  286;  287;  :-W2  :  422:  Wiuckler.  op.  cit.,  pp.  47-04 : 
Pelattre,  "Les  Chalde'ens,"  Paris,  1877.) 

The  peculiar  use  of  the  name  "  Chaldsean  "  in  this  passage  of  Daniel, 
to  denote  a  class  of  magicians,  is  not  only  entirely  foreign  to  the  usage 
of  the  Old  Testament,  but  is  peculiar  to  the  Greek  and  Roman  writers. 
Tin-  term  Xa/.caiot  is  used,  for  example,  by  Herodotus  to  denote  the 
priestly  class  of  Babylonia,  from  whom  he  got  his  historical  informa- 
tion. This  transfer  of  the  name  of  the  people  to  a  special  class  is  prob- 
ably to  be  explained  in  the  following  manner. 

The  sudden  rise  of  the  Babylonian  Empire  under  the  Chaldaean  rule 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  son  of  Xabopolassar,  tended  to  produce  so  thorough 
an  amalgamation  of  the  Chaldeans  and  Babylonians  who  had  hitherto 
been  racially  distinct,  that,  in  the  course  of  time,  no  perceptible  differ- 
ences existed  between  the  two  peoples.  The  name  "  Chaldaean,"  how- 
ever, lived  on  in  the  restricted  sense  already  mentioned  and  for  the 
following  reasons.  The  Kaldi  had  seized  and  held  from  most  ancient 
times  the  region  of  old  Sumer,  the  centre  of  the  non-Semitic  culture. 
(See  Lehmann,  op.  cit.,  173.)  It  seems  extremely  probable  that  they 
were  so  strongly  influenced  \)y  this  superior  civilization  as  to  eventually 
adopt  it  as  their  own,  and,  as  they  were  the  dominant  race,  the  priestly 
ca-te  of  that  region  became  a  Chaldeean  institution.  It  is  reasonable 
to  conjecture  that  Southern  Babylonia,  the  home  of  the  old  culture, 
supplied  Babylon  and  other  important  cities  with  priests,  who  from 
their  descent  were  correctly  called  Chaldfeans  ;  a  name  which  in  later 
times,  owing  to  the  amalgamation  of  the  Chaldeans  and  Babylonians 
when  the  term  had  lost  its  national  force,  became  a  distinctive  appella- 
tion of  the  priestly  caste.  (Compare  in  this  connection  Gutbrod, 
Ztx-lir.  fur  Assyriologie.  vi.  pp.  29 ff.  Lehuiann,  op.  cit.  173,  and  De- 
lattre.  Chaldeens,  pp.  29-34.)  It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  remark 
here  that  Lagarde.  thinking  of  DJT/J7  ""UPf  HI/J  Isaiah  xiv.  1  and 
HUT  ^X  nV?pn  "OJn  p  Isaiah  M.  a  believed  that  the  original 
Levites  or  Jewish  religious  caste  were  those  Egyptians  who  had  gone 
with  the  Israelites  in  their  exodus  from  Egypt.  That  Egyptians  went 
out  with  Muses  is  probable  from  Exodus  xii.  38  (Numbers  xi.  4?),  and 
that  Egyptian  influence  is  traceable  in  Israel  appears  evident  from  the 
examples  cited  by  Lagarde.  He  believed  that  Moses  was  an  Egyptian 
and  treated  the  account  of  his  birth  and  exposure  (Exodus  i.  1-10)  as  a 
fable  similar  to  the  Persian  story  that  Alexander  the  Great  was  a  son  of 
Darius.  If  Lagarde's  theory  be  true,  it  explains  why  Moses  found  his 
chief  support  in  the  Levites,  his  fellow  countrymen.  Lagarde  goes  on 
to  say  that  if  the  Levites  were  Egyptians,  this  explains  why  they  were 
able  to  govern  the  Irsaelitish  nation  ;  i.  e.  by  virtue  of  their  higher 
culture ;  it  shows  why  the  Levites  do  not  appear  as  a  regular  tribe, 
and  finally,  it  explains  what  the  Egyptian  sources  relate  about  the 
Hebrew  exodus.  (See  Lagarde  Symm.  2.  35  and  in  connection  with 


108 

this  theory  cf.  also,  Orientalia,  H.  2.  1880,  pp.  20-21  and  Meyer, 
Geschichte,  I.  3776.) 

The  Chaldaean  priestly  caste  was  in  all  probability  an  hereditary 
order,  as  Diodorus  Siculus  (II.  29)  stated.  According  to  the  same 
authority  the  priests  were  divided  into  three  classes  ;  first,  those  who 
celebrated  sacrifices  and  performed  purifications,  secondly,  those  who 
recited  incantations  to  keep  off  evil  spirits,  and  finally,  those  who 
explained  portents  and  dreams.  (See  Tiele,  Geschichte,  546.)  This 
division  is,  as  Tiele  remarks,  not  contradicted  by  the  inscriptions, 
although  it  cannot  be  known  with  certainty  what  Assyrian  names  may 
correspond  to  each  of  these  classes.  The  scribes  (Tupsarre),  whose 
tutelary  deity  was  Nebo,  were  also  a  priestly  class,  from  whom  all  the 
literature  of  the  times  proceeded. 

Note  2. — This  translation  seems  perfectly  clear,  as  already  Bertholdt 
saw  (Daniel,  372-373.).  He  translated  it:  'Der  darf  den  Purpur- 
mantel  und  den  goldenen  Halsschmuck  tragen.'  There  is  no  need  to 
supply  '  have  '  as  does  our  Authorized  Version. 

Note  3. — The  darker  purple  scarlet  was  a  color  held  in  high  esteem 
in  antiquity.  Compare  Ezekiel  xxvii.  7  ;  Esther  viii.  15,  Herodotus 
3.  20,  and  Xenophon,  Cyropaedia  1.  3.  2  :  8.  5.  18.  We  may  remember 
the  '  purpurati '  of  the  Persian  kings  who  wore  the  navdvq .  Oriental 
sovereigns  sent  robes  of  this  color  to  their  vassals  very  much  as  the 
popes  sent  the  pallium  in  the  middle  ages  (I  Maccabees  x.  20:  xiv. 
43.  44.).  The  Syriac  chronicle  of  the  Jacobite  primate  Gregory  Bar 
Hebraeus  (1226-1286)  relates  how  the  Sultan  Masud  sent  a  purple  robe 
to  a  favorite  who  had  done  him  a  service  (cf.  Havernick,  Dan.  187.) 

Note  4. — A  gold  chain  seems  to  have  been  worn  by  the  higher  class 
Persians  (Xenophon,  Anab.  1.  8.  29).  It  was  given  as  a  sign  of  special 
favor  (cf.  Herodotus,  3.  20  :  Anabasis,  1.  27,  and  Jahn,  op.  cit.  §130). 

Note  5. — Third  in  rank,  i.  e.  after  Nabonidus  and  Belshazzar.  Prob- 
ably not  "  one  of  the  board  of  three,"  following  chapter  vi.  3,  although 
the  translation  is  possible.  Compare  Kranichfeld,  9.  21 ;  Hitzig,  81, 
and  lately  Prof.  Siegfried — Theologische  Literaturzeitung,  Jan.  10, 
1891,  where  he  takes  exception  to  Diisterwald's  translation  '  third  in 
rank '  (Review  of  Diisterwald,  Die  Weltreiche  und  das  Gottesreich 
nach  den  Weissagungen  des  Propheten  Daniels,  p.  63 — cf.  also  Driver, 
Introduction,  460).  Jerome  remarked  '  vel  tertius  post  me,  vel  unus  a 
tribus  principibus  quos  alibi  "  rpiardTag "  legimus.'  LXX.  'Efow/a  rov 
rpirov  fiepovc;  rfj£  fiaaiAeiac;.  0.  Tprrof  h  TIJ  flaaifaia  fiov  apgei.  (Cf.  Jose- 
phus -Antiquities,  x.  11.3.)  The  Syriac  has  4  w'thuHha  neSlat.'  The 
old  idea  was  that  Daniel  was  to  be  second  Vizier,  the  first  Vizier 
being  called  the  'second'  after  the  king.  (Cf.  Esther  x.  3. — Hiivcr- 
nick,  185  ;  Lengerke,  251 ;  Bertholdt,  374).  Kautzsch,  Grammatik  des 
Biblisch-Aramaischen,  p.  121,  thought  that  it  probably  meant  after 
Nabonidus  and  the  queen-mother. 


109 

Yrrse  10.  Note  1. — The  queen  here  must  mean  either  the  chief 
wife  or  the  mother  of  the  king-  It  has  been  stated,  however,  in  verses 
2  and  3  that  the  wives  of  the  king  were  already  present  and  this  fact 
and  the  tone  of  command,  which  the  author  gives  his  "queen"  in  this 
passage  seems  to  show  that  he  considered  her  not  the  wife,  but  the 
mother  of  Belshazzar.  That  the  queen-mother  was  meant  was  the 
opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  older  commentators.  Compare  Len- 
gerke.  252  ;  Kranichfeld,  221 ;  Havernick,  191 ;  Hengstenberg,  47.  318, 
etc.  Note  however  that  J.  D.  Michrclis,  Daniel,  p.  47  and  Bertholdt 
believed  that  the  wife  of  the  king  was  meant.  Josephus,  Antiquities 
x,  11.  2,  thought  that  it  was  the  king's  grandmother,  etc.,  etc. 

The  queen-dowager  was  a  powerful  and  important  personage  in 
ancient  times.  (See  I  Kings  xv.  13,  II  Chron.  xv.  16.)  As  at  present, 
she  ruled  during  the  minority  of  the  king  and  probably  always  had 
an  advisory  voice  in  the  management  of  the  government.  In  modern 
Turkey,  as  was  the  case  in  ancient  Egypt,  the  queen-mother  is  a 
weighty  factor  in  political  affairs.  Among  the  Hebrews  the  queen- 
dowager  ranked  after  the  king  but  before  his  wives.  (See  II  Kings 
xxiv.  15.) 

In  the  Assyrian  letters  the  king's  greeting  to  the  queen-mother  is 
of  the  most  respectful  character.  Thus,  in  the  letter  translated  by 
Delitzsch,  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie,  i.  187-188,  we  find  'abit  sarri  ana 
unmii  sarri  sulmii  asi,  siilrnu  ana  umrni  sarri' — word  of  the  king  to  the 
queen-mother,  my  greeting,  greeting  to  the  queen-mother.' 

When  the  king  greets  a  subject  he  uses  the  words  '  libbaka  lu  tabka 
-'  make  glad  thy  heart,'  but  in  the  message  to  the  queen-mother  such 
an  address  would  be  disrespectful.  In  spite  of  the  honor  accorded  by 
the  king  to  his  mother,  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that  he  never  calls 
her  'his  Lady.'  a  fact  to  which  Delitzsch  has  called  attention  (1.  c.)  as, 
indicating  the  evident  supremacy  of  the  king.  From  the  tone  of  the 
above  mentioned  letter  the  king  was  ready  to  carry  out  his  mother's 
behests,  but  her  commands  must  first  have  the  royal  sanction.  For 
other  references  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  to  the  queen-dowager, 
cf.  Delitzsch,  op.  cit.  189.  192. 

Note   2.  —  ^p  .      Everything  was    in   confusion,   see   verse  9.  — 

ptPDnj^O— and  the  queen  entered  the  hall  to  see  what  the  trouble 
was. 

Hitzig's   translation  (Daniel,  p.   81)   is    correct;   '  Aus   Anlass  der 

Reden.'     Compare  the  Greek  version,  narevavn  rtiv  Mywv  TOV  paai/.foc  /cat 

-<ivuv  av-ov.     (See  Field,  Hexapla).    Theodqtion  omits  the 'words 

altogether.     The  Vulgate  has,  'prorequae  acciderat  regi  et  optimati- 

bus  CJUS.'      LXX.    ~ore  6  3aci7.£i<;  fx.a7.tce  TTJV  ^aci/.iaaav  Ttepl  TOV  aq/ueiov. 

Note  3.— "H  yiZhyh  ND^D  is  the  regular  salutation  to  the  king, 
as  in  chapter  ii.  4  ;  iii.  9  ;  vi.  7.  22  ;  Neh.  ii.  3  ;  I  Kings  i.  31.  This 
greeting  was  common  also  in  Babylonian  times  ;  see  Delitzsch,  Bei- 


110 

trage,  i.  239 ;  '  May  Nebo  and  Merodach  give  long  days  and  everlast- 
ing years  unto  the  king  of  the  lands  my  lord,'  and  also  op.  cit.  242. 
In  this  connection  Kaulen,  Assyrien  und  Babylonien,  262,  should  be 
read. 

Verse  11.  Note  1. — Compare  chapter  ii.  48.  It  is  not  historically 
probable  that  a  Jewish  prophet  could  have  occupied  such  a  position; 
first,  because  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  a  strict  Jew  could  conscientiously 
hold  this  post,  and  secondly,  because  the  magicians,  probably  being 
an  hereditary  order  (see  n.  1.  to  v.  7.),  would  have  resented  an  outsider 
being  set  over  them.  (See  Lenonnant,  Magie,  Germ,  ed.,  chapter  6, 
563). 

Note  2. — The  repetition  of  the  words  'thy  father'  at  the  end  of  the 
verse  is  not  necessarily  an  anacolouthon  (Kautsch,  Grammatik  des 
Biblisch-Aram.,  p.  163),  but  simply  for  emphasis.  The  great  king  did 
it  himself.  The  Vulgate  has  '  et  rex  N.  pater  tuus  principem  inajorum 

pater  inquam  tuus.'  (I  find  that  the  well  known  commentator, 

Moses  Stuart,  sometime  Theological  Professor  at  Andover,  was  also  of 
this  opinion  ;  see  his  'Daniel,'  Boston,  1850,  on  this  verse.) 

Verse  12.  Note  1. — It  does  not  seem  to  have  been  uncommon  for 
kings  to  change  the  names  of  their  vassals.  Compare  II  Kings,  xxiv. 
17,  where  the  name  of  Mattaniah,  the  uncle  of  Jeconiah,  is  changed 
by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  Zedekiah,  and  II  Kings  xxiii.  34,  where  Necho, 
king  of  Egypt,  changed  the  name  of  Eliakim,  brother  of  Jehoahaz,  to 
Jehoiakim.  Jehoiakin,  son  of  Jehoiakim,  was  also  called  Jeconiah 
(I  Chron.  iii.  16)  and  Coniah  (Jer.  xxii.  24). 

In  Assyrian  we  may  compare  the  case  of  Tiglath-pileser  III.  (745- 
727  B.  C.),  who  reigned  in  Nineveh  as  Tiglath-pileser,  (Tukultipale- 
sarra)  and  in  Babylon  under  the  name  Pulu  ;  i.  e.  the  biblical  Pul. 
Shalmaneser  the  fourth  (727-722  B.  CO,  was  called  in  Babylon  Ulula'a 
(Ilulaios),  but  in  Assyrian  Shalmaneser  (Sulnianu-asarid). 

Verse  13.  Note  1. — Reflectively  and  not  necessarily  a  question  with 
the  interrogative  J"f  dropped  to  avoid  hiatus.  (So  Kautzsch,  op.  cit.). 
If  the  translation  given  above  be  adopted,  there  is  certainly  no  contra- 
diction between  this  verse  and  the  statement  in  chapter  viii.  27,  that 
Daniel  had  already  been  in  the  service  of  Belshazzar.  The  king  does 
not  say  'art  thou  Daniel?'  as  if  he  had  never  before  heard  the  name, 
(Lengerke,  Daniel,  254),  but  remarks  reflectively  '  so  thou  art  Daniel.' 
The  author  certainly  did  not  intend  to  represent  in  this  address  any 
latent  scorn  at  Daniel's  Jewish  origin,  according  to  Calvin's  strange 
idea  (followed  by  Havernick,  Dan.,  194). 

Note  2. — The  relative  pronoun  refers  to  the  exiles  and  not  to  Daniel 
directly  as  the  Vulgate  has  it.  Theodotion  has  correctly  //?  i'r/a-yev. 

Verse  15.  Note  1. — Simple  asyndeton,  cf.  chapter  i.  20 ;  ii.  27.  45. 
The  Syriac  version  inserts  the  copula,  Havernick,  Dan.  194,  and  Ber- 
tholdt,  Dan.  380,  following  Theodotion,  supposed  that  the  other  classes 
of  magicians  had  been  omitted.  Theodotion  has  So^oi  Mdy<«3 


Ill 

Yerse  17.  Note  1. — Daniel's  refusal  to  accept  the  promised  reward 
i>  a  sign  of  his  religious  exclusiveness.  He  is  unwilling  to  take  gifts 
for  using  the  power  which  God  has  given  him.  As  to  his  final  accept- 
ance of  the  offer,  see  note  to  v.  29. 

Xote  2. — The  author  gives  the  prophet  time  to  examine  and  read  the 
writing  during  the  speech  of  the  king.  Compare  the  LXX.:  TOTE 
Arm///  knrrj  Karivavri  ~f)<;  } pa6fjg  nal  avh/vui  KCU  orroic  a—£Kpi$7j,  etc. 

Verse  IS.  Xote  1. — '  0  King ' — really  '  Thou  0  King  ' — a  nomina- 
tive absolute  as  in  chapter  ii.  29. 

Xote  2. — X'otice  the  contrast  so  strongly  emphasized  in  these  verses 
18-20,  between  the  great  Xebuchadnezzar,  and  his  insignificant  suc- 
cessor. The  point  is.  that  if  X'ebuchadnezzar,  the  great  king,  suffered 
such  punishment  for  his  pride  from  the  Most  High,  how  much  more 
then  Belshazzar  who  has  deliberately  insulted  the  God  of  the  Heavens 
by  the  profane  use  of  His  sacred  vessels. 

Verse  21.  Xote  1- — The  usual  translation  is  'wild  asses.'  Theodo- 
tion  has  ™»'  nvaypur,  translating  the  Aramaean  word  X"OJ7- 

It  seems  preferable  however  to  read  here  K*"nj7 — herds,  a  sugges- 
tion which  was  advanced  by  Prof.  Haupt  in  his  lectures  and  which  is 
mentioned  by  J.  I).  Michrelis,  Daniel,  p.  51,  as  being  the  reading  of  an 
old  codex.  The  reading  '  wild  asses  '  certainly  makes  no  sense,  as  no 
mortal  man  could  take  up  his  abode  with  these  swiftest  denizens  of  the 
desert. 

Xote  2. — For  this  legend  regarding  Xebuchadnezzar  see  Daniel  iv. 
25-34.  Eusebius  gives  an  account  which  bears  some  slight  resem- 
blance to  the  Biblical  story.  Eusebius  took  his  version  of  the  tale 
from  the  writings  of  Abydenus  who  mentioned  Megasthenes  as  his 
source.  The  latter  was  said  to  have  had  the  account  direct  from  the 
ChalcUeans.  According  to  this  version,  Xebuchadnezzar  prophesies 
the  downfall  of  Babylon  and  invokes  on  his  enemies  the  very  fate 
which  according  to  the  book  of  Daniel  he  suffered  himself.  Compare 
Eusebius.  Evang.  Praeparationis  Liber  9.  41.  6,  ed.  Gaisford,  and  the 
shorter  account  of  the  same  in  the  Chronicorum  Libri  duo,  Schone  I. 
41.  42,  cited  Schrader,  Jahrbuch  fiir  Protestantische  Theologie,  vii.  628 
-'  Wahnsinn  Xebuchadnezzar's.' 

The  theory  of  v.  Lengerke,  Dan.  151  and  Hitzig,  Dan.  57,  seems 
hardly  tenable,  that  the  account  of  Abydeuus  was  a  later  fabrication, 
taken  partly  from  the  prophecies  in  chapters  ii.-iv,  and  partly  from 
the  story  of  the  lycanthropy,  chapter  iv.  and  chapter  v.  The  diame- 
trically opposed  character  of  the  two  accounts  appears  to  preclude  such 
a  supposition.  In  the  Bible  the  curse  falls  on  Nebuchadnezzar,  while 
in  the  secular  version  the  king  invokes  it  on  his  enemies.  The  con- 
nection between  the  two  seems  to  lie  in  the  fact  that  in  both  accounts 
it  is  a  tale  about  Xebuchadnezzar  and  a  curse.  If,  as  Schrader  thought, 
the  two  accounts  are  independent  developments  of  one  aud  the  same 
Babylonian  legend,  one  version  has  been  sadly  distorted. 


112 

Some  have  sought  to  find  confirmation  for  the  biblical  account  in  the 
statement  of  Josephus,  c.  Ap.  I.  20,  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  Efnrt-auv  hq 
apfMMrrlav,  departed  this  life,  their  idea  being,  that  unless  the  illness 
had  been  something  peculiarly  remarkable,  such  as  the  biblical  '  in- 
sania  zoanthropica,'  it  would  not  have  been  mentioned!?).  It  app"ars 
impossible,  however,  with  our  present  data  to  make  any  definite  state- 
ment with  regard  to  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  biblical  account  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  lycanthropy. 

Verse  23.  Note  1.— Compare  Psalm  cxxxv.  16,  17.  'They  have 
mouths  but  they  speak  not,  eyes  have  they,  but  they  see  not.  They 
have  ears  but  they  hear  not,  neither  is  there  any  breath  in  their 
mouths.'  Also  Psalm  cxv.  4  ff. 

Note  2.-Cf.  Jeremiah  x.  23,  faT!  DIN*?  tf?  • 

:    -  T  T    : 

Verse  24.  Note  1.  — Theodotion  fiia  rov-o  and  Vulgate  '  idcirco '  are 
not  quite  exact.  It  is  'then'  not  'therefore.'  (Of.  the  more  suitable 
Syriac  lhayden.' 

Verse  25. — Note  1. — The  mina  alludes  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  shekel, 
one  sixtieth  as  valuable,  points  to  the  insignificant  Belshazzar,  while 
the  two  half-minas  refer  to  the  double  nation  the  Medes  and  Persians. 
who  are  to  destroy  the  power  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  See  above,  chapter 
first,  for  full  discussion.  Both  the  Greek  and  Latin  versions  in  the 
reproduction  of  the  mysterious  sentence  in  v.  25  read  only  the  three 
words  'mane,'  'thekel,'  'peres,'  omitting  one  JOO  ,  and  disregarding 
both  the  conjunction  ^  and  the  plural  form  of  DID  •  This  reading 
may  have  been  due  to  the  influence  of  vs.  26,  27,  28  where  only  a  single 
JOP }  and  the  singular  form  D*)3  are  Mentioned  with  ^pjl ,  as 
strictly  necessary  to  the  interpretation.  The  Syriac  version  alone  has 
kept  the  received  text,  '  mane  m"na  th'qel  wc  pharsin.' 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  one  version  of  the  LXX.  in  disagree- 
ment in  this  point  with  the  version  of  Theodotion,  has  transferred  the 
words  to  v.  5  (q.  v.)  and  changes  their  order,  reading  Moi^,  *dpef,  Qenel. 
It  seems  possible  that  the  copyist  of  the  original  manuscript,  from 
which  this  translation  was  made,  understood  the  real  meaning  of  the 
words  as  names  of  weights  and  without  seeing  their  special  application 
to  this  passage,  felt  the  necessity  of  a  regularly  decreasing  enumera- 
tion. (Cf.  in  this  connection  Hebraica  iii.  No.  2,  36.  note  1.  (Ganneau)). 
The  LXX.,  however,  ^translates  the  three  words  by  itpi'&iieTai,  egi/pra/, 
e.a-arat]  'numbered,  taken  away,  weighed.' 

Verse  28.  Ancient  history  establishes  the  closest  connection  be- 
tween the  Medes  and  Persians.  (For  the  history  of  the  Medes  proper 
see  above,  ch.  ii.)  The  Greeks  frequently  applied  the  common  term 
Medes  indifferently  to  either  nation.  Thus,  the  conflicts  with  Darius 
and  his  successors  were  called  either  ra  Medina  or  ra  TLepaiKa,  while 
the  Persian  Great  King  who  ruled  in  Susa  was  addressed  as  the  '  King 
of  the  Medes.'  (Cf.  in  connection  with  this,  Rawlinson,  Five  Great 
Monarchies,  2.  306,  note  1,  and  Delattre,  Medes,  p.  5.)  The  Jews  also 


113 

as  is  well  known,  regarded  the  Medes  and  Persians  as  two  peoples 
rli.M-lv  allied  in  law  and  customs.  (Cf.  Dan.  vi.  8.  12.  15;  viii.  2n  ; 
Esther  i.  3— reference  to  the  power  of  Persia  and  Media  ;  i.  14 — Princes 
"1  1  Vrsia  ami  Media  (see  also  i.  18) ;  x.  2 — allusion  to  the  book  of  the 
chronicles  of  Media  and  Persia.)  Previous  to  the  discovery  of  the 
eiineii'onn  inscriptions,  no  one  thought  of  doubting  that  the  Medes  as 
wdi  as  the  Persians  belonged  to  the  Aryan  race.  Herodotus,  7.  62, 
remarked  ina'/iw-ri  -d/.ac  ~po£  -dvruv  "Aptoi,  and  adds  that  when  Medea  of 
('"Ichis  came  to  them  from  Athens  they  changed  their  name  to  Medes. 
It  is  also  especially  stated  by  Strabo  xv.  2.  8,  that  both  Medes  and  Per- 
sians used  practically  the  same  language,  (etai  yap  TT<^  KOI  ofidy^orroi 
~apa  fiiKpbv.)  We  may  compare  Rawlinson,  1.  c.,  and  also  Strabo,  xv.  11. 
14.  when-  the  same  assertion  is  ascribed  to  Nearkos,  one  of  the  officers  of 
Alexander.  (See  for  further  examples  Weisbach,  Achameniden  In- 
schriften  zweiter  Art.,  p.  21.) 

Of  late  years,  however,  serious  doubt  has  been  cast  on  the  Aryan 
origin  <»f  the  Medes  by  a  number  of  scholars.  Because  in  the  trilingual 
inscriptions  of  the  Achaemeniau  kings,  between  the  original  Persian 
and  the  Babylonian  translation,  another  idiom  appears,  taking  prece- 
dence over  the  Babylonian,  certain  scholars  have  believed  this  to  be 
the  language  of  Media.  (So  Oppert,  Medes,  p.  2.  For  a  synopsis  and 
discussion  of  the  various  opinions  on  this  subject  see  Delattre,  op.  cit., 
Pl>.  Iff.  and  p.  16.)  This  dialect  of  the  second  sort  which  was  given 
such  a  prominent  place  in  the  royal  inscriptions  must  be.  it  was  thought, 
the  idiom  of  the  most  important  subject  people  of  the  Persian  Empire, 
the  Babylonian  being  necessarily  excluded.  They  decided  accordingly 
that  it  could  only  be  the  language  of  the  Medes.  Then,  when  an  exam- 
ination brought  to  light  that  it  was  neither  a  Semitic  nor  an  Aryan 
idiom,  they  concluded  that  the  Medes  must  have  been  a ''Turanian" 
people.  The  principle  on  which  such  a  supposition  rested  is,  that  the 
choice  and  disposition  of  language  in  the  Achaemenian  texts  depended 
on  the  relative  importance  of  the  peoples  who  made  up  the  Persian 
Empire. 

Although  it  would  certainly  be  natural  that  the  Persian  kings 
should  in  their  trilingual  documents  give  the  idiom  of  the  most  impor- 
tant subject  state  the  precedence,  it  still  does  not  necessarily  follow 
that  the  second  language  in  these  inscriptions  is  that  of  Media.  It 
cannot  of  course  be  denied  that  the  Medes  enjoyed  a  special  promi- 
nence in  the  empire.  The  place  which  they  occupied  in  the  inscrip- 
tions next  to  the  Persians,  and  the  fact  that  Medes  are  found  in  the 
iiH»t  important  and  responsible  positions  seem  to  point  to  such  a  con- 
clusion. (Cf.  Herodotus,  I.  156-157,  Mazares,  a  Mede,  quelled  the 
revolt  of  Sardis  against  Cyrus. — I.  162-176,  Harpagus,  a  Mede,  carried 
on  the  war :  cf .  also  Delattre,  op.  cit.  p.  17,  note  3).  Part  of  their 
powerful  influence  may  have  been  due  to  the  sacerdotal  caste  of  the 
Mairi  who  were  probably  originally  of  Median  origin.  (So  Delattre,  p. 
15 


114 

17  and  p.  55).  The  very  fact  that  the  name  Mede  survived  so  long  as 
almost  a  synonym  for  Persian,  certainly  seems  to  show  that  the  indi- 
viduality of  the  older  people  was  extremely  prominent  throughout  a 
long  period  of  the  Persian  history.  Delattre's  remark  (op.  cit.  p.  18) 
that  these  considerations  are  somewhat  weakened  by  the  statement  of 
the  Annals  2.  1-4  that  Cyrus  plundered  Ecbatana  the  Median  capital, 
like  an  enemy's  city,  has  no  special  force.  Because  the  Medes  by 
their  superior  civilization  eventually  exercised  a  strong  influence  on 
the  Persian  people,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  Cyrus,  probably 
the  first  Persian  who  came  into  close  contact  with  Median  culture, 
established  directly  such  friendly  relations  with  the  conquered  people 
as  to  abstain  from  plundering  their  capital,  which  had  fallen  to  him 
by  right  of  war. 

The  influences  of  this  Median  culture,  however,  probably  began  to 
be  felt  by  the  rougher  Persians  very  shortly  after  their  subjugation  of 
the  Medes.  Indeed  it  seems  very  evident  that  those  friendly  relations 
between  the  two  peoples  which  lasted  with  but  few  interruptions  until 
the  Median  name  disappears  from  history  were  early  founded. 

While  the  strong  influence  of  the  Medes  on  the  destinies  of  the  Per- 
sian empire  seems  an  established  fact,  the  actual  province  or  Media 
was  still  very  probably  not  the  most  important  in  the  empire.  Media 
alone  was  not  even  a  distinct  province,  but  according  to  Herodotus,  3. 
92,  with  two  neighboring  countries  formed  a  single  satrapy,  paying 
annual  tribute.  . 

It  is  contrary  to  the  consensus  of  the  ancient  authors,  as  shown 
above,  to  regard  the  Medes  as  anything  but  Aryans  and  closely  allied 
to  the  Persians.  The  statement  of  Strabo  that  both  Medes  and  Per- 
sians used  nearly  the  same  language  is  confirmed  by  an  examination  of 
the  extant  Median  proper  names,  nearly  all  of  which  are  of  marked 
Aryan  character.  We  may  compare  llawlinson,  Herodotus  3.  444-455 
(2d  ed.)  and  the  remarks  of  Eduard  Meyer  on  the  list  of  names  of  the 
Median  chiefs  of  Sargon's  time  given  in  Delitzsch,  Kossaeans,  p.  48. — 
See  also  Literaturblatt  fur  Orientalische  Philologie  (Ernst  Kuhn),  ii. 
p.  51.  From  the  nature  of  these  names  Meyer  concludes  quite  rightly 
that  the  rulers  of  Media  at  the  end  of  the  eighth  century  B.  C.  were  of 
Aryan  race.  (See  also  Weisbach,  op.  cit.,  p.  19.) 

With  regard  to  the  opinion  that  the  Medes  were  made  up  of  two  ele- 
ments, "Aryan"  and  '"Turanian,"  I  cannot  do  better  than  paraphrase 
as  follows  the  remarks  of  Weisbach  (op.  cit.,  pp.  21ft7.).  According  to 
him  if  this  theory  be  accepted,  four  possibilities  present  themselves 
with  regard  to  the  language  of  the  Medes. 

A.  All  Medes  spoke  Aryan. 

B.  All  Medes  spoke  an  Aryan-Turanian  mixed  language. 

C.  All  Medes  spoke  Turanian. 

D.  The  Aryan  Medes  spoke  Aryan,  the  "  Tura-nians  "  spoke  u  Turan- 


115 

In  answer  to  the  first  two  suppositions,  it  may  be  stated,  that  the 
language  of  the  inscriptions  of  the  second  sort  is  clearly  neither  Aryan 
nor  a  mixed  idiom,  for  example,  like  modern  Turkish,  while  the  theory 
that  all  Medes  spoke  "Turanian  "  is  made  untenable  by  the  statements, 
referred  to  above,  of  the  ancient  authors  who  evidently  regarded  the 
Median  language  as  Aryan.  The  fact,  too,  that  the  Medes  played  such 
an  important  part  in  Persian  history,  and  were  for  such  a  long  time  so 
closely  and  prominently  connected  with  the  latter  people,  could  hardly 
have  been  the  case  had  they  been  a  totally  distinct  "Turanian"  race. 
In  the  latter  instance,  while  considerable  influence  might  have  been  exer- 
cised by  an  entirely  alien  people,  such  a  complete  association  and  iden- 
tification of  interests  as  appear  between  the  Medes  and  Persians  could 
hardly  have  been  expected.  The  tie  of  a  common  language  must  have 
been  present  to  establish  such  a  close  union.  As  to  the  last  idea,  that 
part  of  the  Medes  spoke  Aryan  and  part  "Turanian,"  even  if  this  were 
so,  we  would  have  no  right  to  call  the  language  of  the  "Turanian"' 
Medes,  "Median,"  as  this  term  was  applied  by  custom  to  an  Aryan 
speech.  To  do  so,  would  he  start  a  confusion  of  names  similar  to  that 
suggested  by  Weisbach  (p.  22).  He  asserts  quite  rightly,  that  to  call  a 
"Turanian"  language  "Median"  would  be  an  error  like  calling  the 
language  of  the  Germans  resident  in  Bohemia,  "Bohemian,"  a  term 
which  is  only  applied  to  the  idiom  of  the  Czechs  ;  the  true  Bohemians. 
In  addition  to  this,  however,  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the 
language  of  the  Achaemenian  inscriptions  of  the  second  sort  is  that 
of  "Turanian  Mi'des  at  all. 

If,  as  seems  necessary,  the  Medes  must  be  regarded  as  entirely 
Aryans,  to  what  people  then  are  the  non-Aryan  non-Semitic  Achae- 
nu-nian  inscriptions  of  the  second  sort  to  be  ascribed?  Here  M. 
Delattre  seems  to  have  found  the  key  to  the  solution  of  the  problem. 

He  advances  the  theory  that,  because  according  to  Oppert  and  Sayce 
the  so-called  "  Median  "  of  the  Achaemenian  inscriptions  has  affinity 
with  the  Elarnitic  or  Susian  language,  the  people  who  used  the  doubt- 
ful idiom  of  the  Persian  documents  were  of  Elarnitic  race.  As  a  num- 
ber of  Persian  loan-words  (see  Lenormant  Lettres  Assyr.,  t.  1.  18-19, 
Delattre,  op.  cit.  43)  are  found  in  the  Achaemenian  dialect,  he  further 
concluded  that  the  people  who  spoke  it  must  have  been  for  some  time 
closely  connected  with  Persian  influences.  The  fulfillment  of  both 
these  conditions  he  finds  in  the  natives  of  Ansan,  the  hereditary  state 
of  Cyrus  ;  i.  e.  he  believes  that  the  second  Achaemenian  language  was 
the  Elamitic  dialect  of  Ansan,  a  theory  which  certainly  deserves  con- 
sideration, in  that  the  language  of  Ansan,  as  the  vernacular  of  the 
nucleus  of  the  Persian  empire,  might  have  ranked  directly  after  Persian 
and  taken  the  precedence  of  Babylonian.  (For  Ansan  and  its  older 
language  see  Weisbach,  Die  Anzanischen  Inschriften,  1891). 

As  our  knowledge  of  the  language  of  Old  Elam,  however,  does  not 
yet  permit  a  translation  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  in  that  tongue,  it 


116 

seems  impossible  at  present  to  make  any  definite  statement  concerning 
Elamitic  dialects.  Then,  too,  the  fact  that  the  Achaemenian  second  lan- 
guage and  the  Elamitic  are  quite  distinct  though  evidently  allied  lan- 
guages heightens  the  difficulty.  In  this  connection,  however,  the  great 
di if erence  in  time  between  the  Achaemenian  inscriptions  of  the  second 
sort  and  the  ancient  documents  of  Susiana  orElam  must  notbe  forgotten. 
Sayce  has  found  that  the  inscriptions  of  Old  Elam  are  to  be  divided 
into  two  groups — the  one  written  in  characters  closely  allied  to  the 
Old  Babylonian,  while  the  second  kind,  the  inscriptions  of  Mai- Amir 
present  a  later  form  which  is  closely  akin  to  that  of  the  Achaemenian 
records  of  the  second  sort.  According  to  Weisbach  (Acham.  Inschr. 
zweiter  Art.,  p.  24),  it  is  possible  to  demonstrate  by  a  number  of  exam- 
ples that  this  form  of  the  Achaemenian  inscriptions,  originally  derived 
from  the  Babylonian  characters,  is  a  later  development  from  the  form 
found  on  the  monuments  of  Mai- Amir.  Weisbach  refers  in  this  con- 
nection to  the  list  of  characters  given  by  Sayce  in  the  Transactions  of 
the  Sixth  International  Oriental  Congress. 

All  that  can  be  asserted  at  present  seems  to  be  that  the  three  great 
languages  of  the  Persian  empire  were  Persian,  the  idiom  of  the  second 
sort,  and  Babylonian.  The  second  language  may  be  a  later  form  of  the 
old  Elamitic  or  Susian,  containing  a  number  of  Aryan  loan-words  ob- 
tained through  long  intercourse  with  Aryan  races  ;  i.  e.  the  Medes  and 
Persians.  This  is  practically  the  opinion  of  Weisbach  (op.  cit.  24)  who 
calls  the  doubtful  Achaemenian  dialect  "New  Susian"  and  remarks  that 
this  idea  agrees  excellently  with  the  order  in  which  we  find  the  three 
idioms  in  the  documents  of  the  Persian  Kings, — first,  language  of 
Persia ;  second,  that  of  Susa  or  Elam,  and  third,  that  of  Babylonia. 
As  soon  as  it  appears  evident  that  the  Achaemenian  inscriptions  of  the 
second  sort  need  not  necessarily  be  in  the  language  of  the  Medes,  the 
Aryan  race  of  the  latter,  in  view  of  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  should 
not  be  called  in  question. 

In  the  twenty-eighth  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  Daniel  the  parono- 
masia on  '  Persian '  may  perhaps  indicate  that  the  author  was  not  un- 
aware of  the  dominant  position  of  that  people.  The  idea  advanced  by 
v.  Lengerke  that  he  used  a  play  of  words  on  Persian,  because  he  could 
not  pun  on  the  word  Mede,  is  untenable,  because  a  derivative  of  the 
stem  "HO  >  to  measure,  such  as  Hip  would  have  answered  the  pur- 
pose admirably  (see  Kranichfeld,  Daniel,  227).  With  regard  to  the 
question  of  the  precedence  accorded  by  the  biblical  writer  to  the  older 
people,  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  earlier  references  use  the 
term  Medes  for  both  nations.  Thus,  in  Isaiah  xiii.  17,  in  prophesying 
the  doom  of  Babylon  it  is  stated,  'behold  I  will  stir  up  the  Medes 
against  them,'  etc.,  and  in  Jeremiah  li.  11,  referring  to  the  same  subject, 
'the  Lord  hath  raised  up  the  spirit  of  the  kings  of  the  Medes.' 
Throughout  the  entire  book  of  Daniel,  wherever  both  nations  are  men- 
tioned, the  Medes  have  the  first  place,  while  in  the  book  of  Esther, 


117 

IVr>in  is  put  before  Media,  exce'pt  in  chapter  x.  2.  where  an  allusion  is 
made  to  tin-  l>ook  of  the  chronicles  of  Media  and  Persia, — perhaps  an 
old  record. 

The  explanation  of  the  gradual  decadence  of  the  Median  name  seems 
to  be.  that  as  the  Medes  in  the  course  of  time  amalgamated  and  became 
practically  identical  with  their  Persian  kinsmen,  the  name  Persian 
came  to  be  used  in  place  of  Mede.  In  fact  the  latter  name  seems  to 
have  completely  disappeared  under  the  Sassanidae  (see  Delattre,  op. 
cit.  '.J>\).  It  was  perfectly  natural  that  two  closely  allied  peoples  speak- 
in  u  practically  the  same  language  and  probably  intermixing,  should 
end  by  becoming  one,  and  that  the  name  of  the  dominant  race  should 
prevail. 

Verse  L>(.».  Note  1.— It  is  not  clear  from  the  text  of  this  verse 
whether  the  author  meant  to  convey  that  the  promised  honors  were 
really  conferred  on  Daniel  or  not,  nor  is  the  question  of  sufficient  im- 
portance to  merit  the  discussion  given  to  it  by  some  commentators. 
(  i  Havernick,  Dan.  201,  v.  Lengerke,  241.  265.  etc.)  It  is  possible 
t«>  translate,  'Belshazzar  gave  orders  and  they  clothed  Daniel,  etc.,' 
which  would  mean  that  the  reward  was  conferred  immediately,  or,  l  Bel- 
shazzar gave  orders  to  clothe  Daniel,'  which  does  not  necessarily  imply 
that  the  commands  were  carried  out,  but  that  the  death  of  the  king 
may  have  prevented  the  fulfillment  of  the  promise.  In  view  of  the 
frequent  co-ordination  of  sentences  in  cases  where  the  subordinate 
character  of  one  clause  is  apparent,  the  latter  translation  seems  prefer- 
able. (See  Kautzsch,  Grammatik  des  Biblisch-Aramaischen,  §  102.) 
The  idea  that  the  rewards  were  conferred  directly  was  held  by  Jerome, 
who  remarked  :  '  non  mirum  si  B.  audiens  tristia  solverit  praemium 
«iuod  pollicitus  est.  Aut  enim  longo  post  tempore  credidit  ventura  quae 
dixerit.  ant.  duni  Dei  prophetani .  honorat,  sperat  se  veniam  consecutu- 
ruui.'  (Cf.  also  Zockler,  Daniel,  119.) 

ADDITIONAL   LINGUISTIC   NOTES   TO   DANIEL   V. 

Verse  1.  a)  Belshazzar  =  Babylonian,  Bel-sar-ugur,  'Bel  preserve 
the  King.'  Compare  among  others,  Schrader,  Die  Keilinschriften  und 
das  Alte  Te-tanient,'  ed.  2,  p.  433,  and  Fried.  Delitzsch,  in  Baer  and 
Delitzseh.  Daniel,  Ezra  and  Neh.  praef.,  p.  x.  Similar  names  are  Mar- 
duk-sar-ucur,  Nergal-sar-ugur.  Sin-sar-uyur,  etc.  (for  the  latter,  see 
Xt-chr.  fur  Assyriologie,  ii.  p.  101). 

Previous  to  the  discovery  of  the  name  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions, 
mo>t  commentators  identified  it  with  Belteshazzar.  an  error  which  dates 
from  ancient  times,  as  the  Greek  translators  of  the  Old  Testament  evi- 
dently regarded  the  two  names  as  the  same,  representing  both  by  the 

form  Ba/.ra<7ap. 

J.  D.  Miehaelis  defended  the  reading  "IVC^N1?^  (found  Daniel  vii. 
1  and  viii.  1).  Hitzig  regarded  this  form  as  evidence  that  the  *t£^NJ 
was  an  abbreviation  of  the  relative  'Hj^'tf.'  Among  the  Jewish 


118 

authorities  Sa'adia  derived  the  name  from  J£^O — to  search  and 
because  the  king  had  to  search  for  the  vessels  in  the  "llflN  ! 

For  various  obsolete  opinions  as  to  the  derivation  of  the  name  see 
Havernick,  p.  172 ;  v.  Lengerke,  p.  242  :  Kranichfeld,  p.  65,  etc.,  etc. 

The  name  Sheshbazzar,  of  the  Persian  Commissioner,  or,  according 
to  some,  of  Zerubbabel,  found  in  Ezra  i.  8,  may  be  a  formation  like  Bel- 
sar-ucur.  A  number  of  variants  of  the  name  Sheshbazzar  occur  in  the 
Greek  versions,  i.  e.  in  the  translation  of  Ezra.  Saoaajlaoaap,  Zajfaffapw, 
*Zavafiaaaap,  I>avafiaGGapo£]  in  first  Esdras  ;  ^avaftaaoap  Za/mvacaap ,  and  in 
Josephus  'Afiaffffap.  The  ending — aaaap,  common  to  all,  would  seem  to 
indicate  that  it  is  a  name  ending  in  -ugur.  (In  the  form  ^aftaoapriq, 
— the  -m  is  clearly  the  Greek  termination).  Sheshbazzar  may  be 
regarded  therefore,  either  as  a  corruption  of  Samas-sum-uc.ur,  '  Samas 
protect  the  name,'  or,  as  Cheyrie  has  suggested,  for  Samas-pal-u§ur, 
*  Samas  protect  the  son '  (see  Academy,  No.  1031,  p.  138,  commenting  on 
Van  Hoonacker's  idea  that  it  is  for  Samas-bil-uc.ur,  '  Samas  protect  the 
Lord  '—in  Academy,  No.  1030,  p.  114). 

I  am  inclined  to  favor  Cheyne's  ingenious  interpretation,  as  it  would 
not  only  be  perfectly  possible  for  the  I  of  '  pal '  to  disappear  before  the 
following  sibilant,  but  the  name  would  be  more  in  conformity  with 
Babylonian  usage,  than  any  of  the  other  suggestions. 

b)  Drf?  "Oif  cf.  rrfHtf'D  ni^y  Eccles.  x.  19;  Gen.  xxi.  8. 

c)  p""O*l :  really  a  double  plural ;  i.  e.  with  reduplication  and  the 
ending  -an.     The  word  is  common  in  the  Targums,  where  it  occurs  in 
the  forms,   JO3*O"1    K^^OIl    and    JOTVT)  -     For   examples,  see 

T  T     :    :     -  TT::  TT: 

Levy,  Chaldaeisches  Wbrterbuch,  and  cf.  Syriac,  rawrvane,  rawrvFuuiy, 
etc.,  Noldeke,  Syriac  Grammar,  §  146.  For  a  list  of  nouns  in  Syriac 
forming  their  plural  in  -an,  see  op.  cit.  3  74.  As  Noldeke  remarked 
(Gbtt.  Gel.  Anz.,  1884,  p.  1020),  Kautzsch  might,  in  his  Grammatik  des 
Biblisch-Aram.,  p.  110  and  114,  have  stated  a  little  more  explicitly  that 
the  double  formations  PD^O"")  i  JOD*O"1 »  etc-?  cannot  occur  in  the 
singular,  any  more  than  the  simple  form  y\ ,  £O*)  can  form  a  plural, 
(with  the  exception  of  course,  of  a  few  special  cases). 

d)  ^Dp^  —  before,  in  front  of,  from  ^Dp  »  receive,  Arabic 

An  exactly  equivalent  expression  is  the  Assyrian  ;  ina  maxru  '  ==  before, 
in  the  presence  of,  from  '  maxaru,'  to  be  in  front  of,  go  to  meet ;  then,  to 
meet  as  an  enemy;  hence  'tamxaru,'  battle,  and  'maxiru,'  rival.  'Max- 
aru' means  also,  to  hasten;  hence  '  mitxaris,'  swiftly.  See  Delitzsch, 
Assyrische  Studien,  pp.  124-125,  for  the  development  of  these  words. 

Verse  2.  a)  $ODH  D^CDD — 'at  the  command  of  the  wine,'  not, 
'  when  the  wine  began  to  taste  '  as  is  usually  translated.  See  Haver- 
nick,  Dan.  174 ;  Kranichfeld,  Dan.  214 ;  Hitzig,  Dan.  79,  etc.  Both 
B,.  Salomo  and  Ibn  Ezra  understood  this  passage  correctly,  translating 
1  at  the  bidding  of  the  wine,'  cf .  Havernick,  Dan.  175.  The  LXX.  has 
'Evvi/>oiy/£i>of  OTTO  TOV  olvov.  Theodotion,  £v  rri  yevaei  rov  olvov.  Vulgate, 
jam  temuleritus. 


119 

Aram.  QJL7D  and  Assyrian  '  temu '  mean  both  'understanding'  and 
'command.'  For  the  former  meaning  for  Di^D  i  see  Dan.  ii.  3 ;  DW 
DJ7p  '  to  consider  ;'  also  Dan.  iii.  12  ;  iv.  14.  For  the  signification 
'command;'  see  Ezra  iv.  8,  9,  17.  DjL^p  ^I?? — 'commander;'  also 
Dan.  iii.  10,  etc. 

A -syrian  '  temu  '  occurs  in  the  meaning  'understanding,'  IR.  Samsi- 
ramiuan  ;  II.  18,  where  we  find  amelu  tema,  '  a  man  of  understanding  ;' 
IV  R.  57  ;  col.  III.  33,  usanna  tenki,  I  will  change  thy  understanding  ; 
i.  e.  '  make  thee  mad,'  and  Asb.  c.  8,  6,  tensu  usannima,  'he  smote  him 
with  insanity.'  For  this  translation  and  the  form  '  tensu  '  for  '  temsu,' 
see  Haupt.  Wateh-Ben-Hazael,  Hebraica,  i.,  pp.  219-220.  '  tema  '  means 
'command,  demand;'  IV  R.  54.  n.  1.2  etlu  ina  temisu  'the  husband 
with  his  demand  ;'  I  R.  46;  col.  Ill  57.  ki  tern  ramanisu,  'of  his  own 
accord.' 

b)  \3fcO1?  •     For  the  Aramaean  and  later  Hebrew  use  of  ^  ,  to  denote 
the  Accusative  (Kautzsch.,  p.  127),  the   exactly   equivalent  usage  of 
'  ana  '  =  to,  for,  in  later  Assyrian  may  be  compared.     For  full  references 
see  Bezold,  Achameniden  Inschriften,  p.  49.  n.  3. 

c)  *H!E?  ,  '  the  legitimate  wife,' — see  Ps.  xlv.  10,  used  in  Neh.  ii.  6,  of 
the  queen.     According  to  Bar  AH  (cf.  Payne  Smith,  Thesaurus,  p.  542, 
top,  under  belathi.  Venus)  the  star  Venus  was  called  by  the  Babylonians 
segal  wadilbat.     *?%$  was  evidently  a  synonym,  therefore,  of  belathi, 
beltu,  Lady,  a  name  of  Istar. 

Hesychius  also  gives  the  form  A£/£0a~,  (i.  e.  Dilbat),  as  the  Babylonian 
name  of  Istar- Venus  as  the  morning  star.  (See  Lehmann,  Samassumu- 
kin,  p.  125.)  Dilbat  seems  to  mean  'the  announcer,'  i.  e.  of  morning  or 
evening.  See  II  R.  7,  37,  g.  h. ;  dilbat  —  nabu,  'to  tell,  announce.'  In 
II  R.  48.  51,  the  star  Dilbat  is  mentioned  in  the  same  paragraph  with 
Sin  (the  moon)  and  Samas  (the  sun).  For  the  goddess  Istar  in  her 
double  capacity  of  morning  and  evening  star,  see  Delitzsch-Miirdter, 
Geschichte,  p.  29,  and  for  the  name  of  the  place  Dilbat  cf.  Delitzsch, 
Wo  lag  das  Paradies,  p.  119. 

Verse  5.  a)  *)p5J — Vulgate,  '  apparuerunt.'  The  q're  Hp5J  is  un- 
necessary, nor  is  there  any  need  of  reading  ?p53  fern,  pi.,  according  to 
an  old  codex.  (118.  K.  cf.  Bertholdt,  Daniel,  368.  n.  5).  The  Semitic 
construction  does  not  require  that  the  verb  and  subject  should  agree. 
As  to  the  possible  survival  of  a  feminine  pi.  in  Hebrew,  see  J.  P.  Peters, 
Hebraica,  iii.,  no.  2.  111.  That  u  and  d  were  respectively  the  masculine 
and  feminine  third  person  pi.  endings  of  the  perfect  is  quite  probable, 
if  the  existence  of  a  perfect  in  primitive  Semitic  be  granted.  More 
than  this  it  is  very  difficult  to  assert.  We  may  compare  in  this  connec- 
tion the  remarks  of  Dr.  Cyrus  Adler,  Hebraica,  iii.,  n.  4,  268. 

b)  Knt^lD^  5  <*TTa$  Ae-yofievov.  Derivation  uncertain.  Syriac  nev- 
rasta — flame,  lantern,  from  which  the  Denominative  ethnevras, 
illuminate  ;  Arabic,  nibras.  The  Jerusalem  Gemara  translates  it  by 


120 

,  using  the  Greek  word.     According  to  Ibn  Ezra, 
is  the  synonym  of  PHI^O  »  used  of  the  great  branching  candlestick  of 

T          : 

the  Tabernacle.     (See  Buxtorf,  Lexicon,  col.  1290  and  Exod.  xxv.  31  ff.; 
I  Kings  vii.  49,  etc.)     The  Targum  to  Zephaniah  i.  12,  translates  *"),}  by 


In  this  passage  of  Daniel  v.  the  Syriac  version  has  seraga.  Vulgate. 
contra  candelabrum.  Theodotion,  Karevavn  rift  Aa//7rdJof.  Yers.  Mass. 
evtiTTiov  rov  A«//7r/;poc,  and  in  the  LXX.  nartvavn  rov  </>«rof. 

All  authorities  seem  agreed  that  the  word  is  of  foreign  origin.  Cf. 
Bickell,  Ephr.  Carm.  Nisib.  53,  where  a  derivation  from  the  Sanskrit 
ni  -f-  bhrag,  illuminate,  is  suggested.  This  is  as  unsatisfactory  as  the 
attempt  of  Bernstein  (Lexicon)  to  derive  it  from  ^OJ  ,  shine,  and 
NntP'N  ,  nre,  or  that  of  Sa'adia  from  Nfit^'"*"O~^—  light  that  shines 
through  all  the  year.  See  Buxtorf,  Lex.  col.  1290. 

A  Persian  derivation  (Frankel,  Fremdworter,  p.  96)  is  hardly  admissi- 
ble, because  the  original  Persian  word  has  yet  to  be  found.  (See  also 
Gruidi,  Osservazione,  p.  3.)  That  the  Arabic  form  '  nibras  '  belongs  to  the 
older  language  is  seen  from  Nab.  27.  21  ;  Jakut.  iv.  737.  7.  No  satis- 
factory etymology  seems  possible  at  present. 

c)  NT3  —  '  plaster,  lime  '  ;  cf.  Buxtorf,  Lexicon,  col.  425,  for  the  Rab- 
binical definition.      ynWftfl   i^Hp    f'O   "^'    species  terra  deni- 
grantis.     The  word  is  probably  cognate  with  Assyrian,  qiru,  'pitch, 
mortar.'     (Cf.  Haupt,  Nimrod  Epos,  137,  1.  66,—  (the  Deluge—)  attabak 
ana  qiri,—  'I  poured  out  for  caulking,'  or  'pitching.'     The  ideogram 
which  is  found  in  this  passage  with  variant  '  ki-i-ri  '  is  explained  in  the 
syllabary  Sb  94.     There  is  probably  some  connection  with  the  Arabic 

S  S  — 

ouJ  ,   pitch,  according  to  the  theory  of  Professor  Haupt  in  Schrader's 

Keilinschriften  und  das  alte  Testament,2  p.  516,  in  spite  of  Jensen's 
doubt  the  meaning  of  the  word  (Kosmologie,  p.  410).  Lagarde  connects 
it  with  Turkish,  kil,  'fuller's  earth  '(?). 

d)  ^rO  ,  '  wall  ;  status  emphat.     K^fp  ,—  see  Ezra  v.  8.     We  may 
compare   Kautzsch,  op.  cit.  ?  54  e.  and  Assyrian  '  kutallu  '  ;  •  4  side.' 
(Senn.  VI.  28  ;  I  R.  44.  55  ;  IV  R.  52.  20  ;  II  R.  48.  50). 

e)  NT  DB  3    '  the  end  of  the  arm  ;'   i.  e.  the  hand,  the  fingers  and 
knuckles  in  distinction  to  the  arm.     Theod.  roi>f  aarpaydfow;  -f/s  x£iP6c- 
Vulgate,  articulos  manus.     Sa'adia  on  verse  24,  rniO^Nn  DJ7  £"pn« 
D£3  may  be  used  of  the  surface  of  the  hand  "or  foot  alike—  cf.  Mishna, 
TH  DD   and   ^"IH   DD  and   Syriac,  p°sath  regla,   pesath   ide.     See 
Syr.  I  K.  xviii.  44  ;  and  Deut.  xxviii.  35. 

Verse  6-  a)  \*lVtj  'his  countenance,'  Vt  'face,'  'complexion,'  'hue.' 
Theodotion  and  the  Vulgate  both  translate  by  '  figure.'  The  word  is 
not  from  the  Persian,  (Noldeke,  Mand.  Or.  XXXI.),  but  is  cognate 
with  Assyrian  zimu,  '  face  ;'  cf.  Jensen,  Ztschr.  fiir  Keilschriftsfor- 
schung,  II.  43.  2;  Zimmcrn,  Busspsalmen,  p.  108  and  Delitzsch,  Pro- 


legomena,  p.  153.  zimu  is  explained  in  Assyrian  by  sak-ki,  'surface  of 
the  head  '  (V  II.  31.  14  c).  For  the  interchange  of  m  and  \  cf.  Ztschr. 
fiir  Assyriologie,  ii.  273,  267,  Haupt. 

b)  *rTU&^  •  The  termination  has  the  force  of  a  dative,  as  already 
Kranichf'eld  saw  (Daniel,  p.  217).  Moses  Stuart,  in  his  Commentary 
on  Daniel,  p.  130,  probably  followed  Kranichfeld  in  this  opinion.  It  is 
not  the  use  of  the  suffix  to  express  the  pronominal  ending  and  the 
preposition,  as  Kautzsch  thought,  (Aram.  Gr.  I  89.2,  as  in  v.  9  Tfl1^), 
nor  is  it  reflexive  (Lengerke,  Daniel,  p.  248).  The  use  of  the  suffix 
to  express  tlie  dative  relation  occurs  possibly  in  Assyrian  in  such  a 
connection  as  Akkadische  und  Sumerische  Keilschrifttexte,  80.  18.  ina 
isinni  Saknus,  at  the  feast  made  for  him  ;  probably  also  op.  cit.  80.  14. 
Adar  sarru  maru  sa  abasu  ana  ruqetiui  appa  usalbinusu — 'Adar  the 
king,  the  son,  before  whom  his  father  makes  them  worship  far  and 
wide.'  It  is  difficult  to  know  if  the  suffix  has  a  real  dative  force  in 
cases  like,  amatum  ubakki,  IV  R.  30.  7,  '  I  made  the  word  come  to  thee;' 
ina  biti  a  erubsu,  Akkad.  Sum.  Keilschrifttexte,  93,21,  'may  it  not 
come  into  the  house  to  him  ;'  op.  cit.  81.  14.  lummidsu,  '  may  I  erect 
to  him,'  etc. 

Verse  7.     a)  JTlp'3  •    Cf.  Assyrian  '  pasaru ' — '  to  loosen,  free  ;'  IV  R. 

.">!'>.  23  :  Ml.  .~)0.  18.  Arabic  JM*S  .  We  find  also  the  expression,  suttu 
pa-aru  'to  interpret  a  dream'  in  Akkad.,  Sum.  Keilschrifttexte,  205; 
sunata  pusaru.  Haupt,  Nim.  Ep.,  6.  44.,  etc.  We  should  compare  also 
lu'ip  Kccles.  viii.  1.  The  Hebrew  form  JVirWp »  'interpretation,' 
must  be  a  loan-word  from  some  dialect  where  the  $  was  lisped  as  a  J"l ; 
cf.  Haupt,  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie,  i.  181,  n.  2. 

b)  NJlTlN-  Assyrian.    '  argamannu '  Asurn.  1.  88  ;  c.  III.  68.;  the 
darker  purple   scarlet  as  opposed  to   '  takiltu,'    j"V?5?  '    *^e   lighter 
purple  red.     Compare  in  this  connection,  Zehnpfund  in  the  Beitrage, 
i.  ")i>7.  on  the  different  sorts  of  purple. 

c)  NDMtDH  •   var.   X3*OD  ,   may  be  the  same  word  as  the  Greek 
uavianris  to  which  Polybius,  II.  31,  refers  as  a  Gallic  ornament :  rovro 
6'earl  %pvanvv  ibf/./.iov  b   6opovai  rrepl  raf  %£ipa£  nal   rbv  rpax^ov  61  Ta/Arai. 
Theodotion's  translation  has  here  6  paviaKw  6  xpwoiq. 

d)  ^n^Jl  (in  vv.  16,  29  Nn^fi).  The  ordinary  form  of  the  Ara- 
ma?aii  numeral  is  W^H.  cf.  Daniel  ii.  39.  Hitzig  (Daniel,  81)  read 
here  Thfr  in  order  to  connect  it  with  Xfi'prJ  ,  but  the  form  ^ri^jH 
can  be  an  adjectival  formation  meaning  the  third,  like  the  Hebrew 
'&'*?&  =  ' a  tnird  part,'  Num.  xv.  6  ;  Ezek.  v.  12.  tfri^jl  would  then 
have  to  be  considered  as  an  abnormal  st.  emphat.  of  an  absolute 
T^r\  (Kautzsch,  op.  cit.  p.  121).  Bevan's  idea  is  that  Kf^ri  may 
be  the  Aramaic  equivalent  of  the  Arabic  ' ath-thilth '  =  "every  third 
day."  and  that  VfrH  in  this  verse  may  be  an  error  due  to  a  scribe 
who,  not  understanding  KrfrfV  read  Tl^fi  =  third  (see  his  Com- 

T    :    -  T    •     : 

16 


122 

mentary,  p.  102).  Such  a  view  seems  highly  improbable,  as  it  would 
imply  the  interpretation  that  the  reader  of  the  mysterious  writing 
should  reign  over  the  kingdom  on  alternate  days  with  the  king  him- 
self! 

Verse  9.  a)  ?*fc£On&^D — Cf .  Assyrian  '  sabasu,'  rage  ;  Asurb.  c.  IV. 
88.  c.  VI.  108.  and  the  substantive  'sibsu,'  Asurn.  II.  106. 

Verse  11.  a)  *j"ltf— 'There  is.'  Before  suffixes  it  often  occurs  in 
the  form  JVK  5  see  Kautzsch,  op.  cit.  p.  125.  It  was  originally  a  sub- 
stantive of  the  stem  V  fV  ,  cognate  with  the  Hebrew  biconsonantal 
noun  ^,  a  formation  like  J5?  'son,'  Dt^»  'name,'  and  the  Assyrian 

'isu'  \/£^.  The  form  *J"1N  with  final  *  is  a  secondary  development 
from  the  noun,  with  the  addition  of  *.  *j"IK  comes  from  an  original 
'yaty  '  (*j"V),  the  construct  state  of  which,  VV  ,  was  pronounced  WN 
(^DN)  in  Aramaean,  initial  *  becoming  as  always  i.  The  Syriac  form 
'ithya'  'being' — rb  ov,  is  probably  a  form  with  a  denominal  Nisbe, 
as  for  example  in  '  segusya.'  The  triradical  stem  ending  in  *  is 

found  in  the  Assyrian  verb  'isu,'  to  have;  \/*J^.  In  Assyrian 
the  original  short  form  '  isu,'  mentioned  above  as  corresponding  to  ffl 
and  rVK  1  o-ccurs,  for  example,  Nimrod  Epic,  13.  3  ;  5.  37,  etc.  Similar 
biconsonantal  forms  are  nouns  like  'saptu,'  lip;  'daltu,'  door;  'ilu,' 
God  ;  '  binu,'  son  ;  '  bintu,'  daughter,  etc.  The  negative  of  Syriac  '  ith ' 
is  '  layth '  contracted  from  '  la  -f-  ith.'  A  simliar  contraction  is  found  in 


the  well  known  Arabic  MJJJU  (the  only  form  of  this  stem  preserved  in 
Arabic),  and  in  Assyrian  l lasu'  =  '  la'  +  'isu.'  See  Keilinschriftliche 
Bibliothek,  I.,  p.  40,  1.  25,  where  we  find  the  form  'lassu'). 

Verse  12.  a)  *")J£^D  and  K*1^£D  •  It  is  simpler  in  agreement  with 
Bertholdt,  Daniel,  p.  378,  n.  15,  and  Kautzsch,  op.  cit.,  §  40,  rein.  1,  to 
read  *"J^'§P  anc^  JO&*P  >  infinitives,  following  the  Vulgate:  Quia  spir- 

itus  amplior et  interpretatio  somnorum  et  ostensio  secretarurn  et 

solutio  ligatorum  inventae  sunt  in  eo.'  Baer  and  Delitzsch,  however, 
read  *)t^"£jp  and  JOfi^'p  (Liber  Dan.  p.  11)  as  participles,  cf.  Theodo- 
tion,  OTI  Trvtvfia  TrJieiarbv  kv  avrti  Kal  (ppovr/aic;  Kal  ovvefftg  ev  avrti  avynplvuv 
evvTrvia  Kal  avayyeAAuv  K,paroi>fj.Eva  Kal  Tivuv  ffwd£fff>iov£.  It  should  be  noticed 
that  if  *")^§p  be  read,  this  is  the  sole  instance  of  the  Pael  of  this 
stem  in  Biblical  Aramaean.  (See  Kautzsch,  op.  cit.,  p.  65,  rem.  1). 

The  original  meaning  of  the  stem  JOt£* ',  to  dwell,  is  'to  loosen.' 

T  : 

We  may  compare  also  the  Assyrian  '  saru ;'  see  Zimmern,  Busspsalmen, 
99.  In  primitive  Semitic  the  meaning  must  then  have  arisen,  '  to 
cast  bundles  from  the  beasts  of  burden  ;'  i.  e.  preparatory  to  en- 
camping for  the  night,  so  that  later  the  idea  '  to  ,dwell,'  was  devel- 

*  *•  $*  -  ^  «*-'- 

oped.     (Cf.  Arabic  J^s*   loosen,   and   xJLsSoo   and   J^Juo  = '  place    of 

rest.')    Derivatives  of  the  Assyrian  '  saru,'  to  loosen  or  begin  are  'sur- 


123 

ru,'  'beginning,'  I  R.  Tig.  I.  62  'surratu.'  Asurn.  I.  43,  and  '  tisritu,' 
the  seventh  month,  the  beginner  of  the  second  half  of  the  year. 

b)  Belteshazzar.  The  author  of  Daniel  evidently  regarded  the  first 
syllable  of  this  word  as  containing  the  name  of  the  god  '  Bel '  (cf.  Dan. 
iv.  5  ;  *n/X  D£*3)-  It  is  now  generally  recognized  that  this  name  is 
a  corruption  of  the  Assyrian  '  Balatsu-ugur,'  'protect  his  life.'  (Cf. 
Oppert,  Doc.  Jur.,  p.  282 ;  Schrader,  Die  Assyr.-Bab.  Keilinschriften 
p.  l.~)2.  Die  Keilinschriften  und  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  429  and  Fried. 
Delitzsch,  Liber  Dan.  Praef.  pp.  ix.-x.)  While  it  is  true  that  we  would 
rather  expect  to  find  D  instead  of  £*  in  the  biblical  form  IVN^tD4?!}  i 
representing  an  original  s  sound ;  i.  e.  '  Balatsu-uyur,'  it  is  possible 
that  in  Babylonian  the  form  of  the  name  may  have  been  'Balata- 
su-uyur  with  s.  In  addition  to  this,  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that 
the  name  was  probably  strongly  influenced  by  the  similar  sound- 
in  i:  Belshazzar.  (See  Delitzsch,  Assyr.  Gr.  Germ,  ed.,  p.  171.)  Georg 
Hoffmann's  reading,  Ztschr.  fiir  Assyr.,  ii.  56,  '  Balat-sar-ugur,'  Balat 
preserve  the  king'  does  not  seem  admissible.  He  sees  in  'Balat'  the 
name  of  a  god,  Saturn,  and  compares  '  Sanballat,'  which  is  clearly  a  cor- 
ruption of  '  Sin-uballit.'  'Sin  (the  moon-god)  has  made  him  live.'  The 
'//»>  of  Phot.  Bibl.  c.  242,  quoted  by  Hoffmann,  is  probably  not 
'Balat.'  The  passage  as  he  gives  it  is  as  follows:  Qoivutes  not  Zvpoi  -dv 
Kpoi'ov  "H/.  KM  B///.  Kai  Bohd&qv  i-ovoud^ovct.  The  writer  may  have  mis- 
taken Bo/arf//r  for  the  name  of  a  male  divinity. 

Verse  17.     a)  ?*VV?-     For  the  Imperfect  with  7"  preformative  see 

IT:  :•    v 

Kautzsch,  op.  cit.,  p.  79.  Although  a  number  of  these  Imperfect  forms 
with  7  preformative  have  an  optative  meaning,  in  some  cases  thejr 
show  simply  the  force  of  a  regular  Imperfect,  as  in  Daniel  ii.  28,  29. 
Tt  cannot  be  asserted,  therefore,  that  there  is  any  difference  in  mean- 
ing between  the  third  pers.  in.  with  *  preformative,  or  the  same  form 
with  7"  preformative. 

In  Mandaean,  as  in  Syriac,  the  regular  prefix  of  the  third  pers.  masc. 
of  the  Imperfect  is  TO,  but  sometimes  I.  It  is  highly  probable  that  the 
n  form  is  secondary,  being  a  development  of  an  original  /,  (see  Haupt, 
Beitrage  i.  17.),  which,  as  is  well  known,  occurs  in  Assyrian  in  a  preca- 
tive  signification.  We  may  compare  in  this  connection,  Laurie,  He- 
braica,  ii.,  X«».  4.  249  ;  "  Remarks  on  an  Assyrian  Precative  in  Daniel." 

In  Mandaean,  as  in  Aramaean,  the  two  prefixes  appear  to  have  an 
equal  force  ;  so  much  so  that  in  the  former  language  the  I  sometimes 
occurs  by  mistake  for  the  unchangeable  n  of  the  first  person.  See 
Niildeke,  Mandaische  Grammatik,  §  166,  and  for  examples  in  Mandaean 
of  the  Imperfect  of  the  verb  XIH  '  to  be,'  with  *?  preformative,  see 
op.  cit.,  §  196. 

Imperfect  forms  with  I  are  also  found  in  the  dialect  of  the  Babylo- 
nian Talmud  ;  see  Luzzato,  Grammatik  des  Idioms  des  Thalmud  Babli, 
p.  84. 


124 


Verse  19.  a)  P^tft  ,  from  V^lf  ,  to  tremble.  The  same  stem  is 
seen  in  the  Assyrian  'zu,'  storm,  bird  of  the  storm;  see  Zimmern, 
Busspsalmen,  94. 

b)  *n!D"lp    JD   P^m  —  fearing  before  him  —  cf.  Assyrian,  'Japan 
esriti  .  .  .  aplaxma.'     I  reverenced   (before)  the   shrines,  Asurb.  c.   X. 
78;  also  I  R  11.  14,  etc. 

c)  JO¥  •     We  may  compare  Assyrian  l  §ibu,'  to  wish,  I  R.  Sargon 
Barrel  Cylinder,  1.  42,  from  which  the  derivative  '  tec.bitu,'  '  a  wish  ;' 
also  '  gibutu,'  '  desire  ;'  see  Jensen,  Ztschr.  fur  Keilschriftsforschung, 
ii.  26/27. 

d)  NHft  •     Ptc.  Haphel  of  ^fl  '  to  live.'     The  older  authorities  con- 

..  _  T  _. 

sidered  it  the  participle  of  ^n/9  ,   to   strike,  evidently  reading  here 

T     : 

NfTD  •  Thus,  Theodotion  translated  «-al  nv£  rjfiatiXero  av-b^  erv-rev,  while 
the  Vulgate  has  'percutiebat.'  It  is  now  generally  accepted,  however, 
that  this  is  the  participle  of  frTH  ,  to  live,  as  indeed  the  context 

T-: 

plainly  shows.  (Cf.  Bertholdt,  Daniel,  p.  362,  19  :  Havernick,  Daniel, 
196  ;  v.  Lengerke,  257/8  ;  Hitzig,  Daniel,  83,  etc.  etc.)  For  this  form 
NflD  of  the  Haphel  Ptc.  of  X*n  ,  we  may  compare  the  Syriac  Aphel 
'  axi,'  with  the  Participle  'maxe.'  Such  forms  are  based  on  the  anal- 
ogy of  the  verbs  mediae  geminatae.  Cf.  Noldeke,  Syrische  Gram- 
matik,  §  183,  and  the  Aphel  '  abez  '  partc.  '  mabez  '  from  the  stem 


is  not  therefore   to  be  considered  as  representing  an  original 
,  as  Kautzsch  thought  (op.  cit.  p.  29  and  see  also  Noldeke,  Grbtt. 

T   :     "* 

Grel.  Anzeigen,  1884,  p.  1018).  Such  an  analogy  between  fr$*n  and  the 
stems  mediae  geminatae  found  in  the  Imperfect  and  in  the  Aphel  of 
the  verb  in  Syriac,  is  easily  understood  when  it  is  remembered  that  the 
primitive  form  of  ^fl  is  Vf"T  ('  xayiwa'  —  intransitive)  a  trace  of  which 

G    -^  ^  ^ 

is  still  found  in  the  Arabic  ^Lxa*  ,  animal,  and  in  the  Aramaic 
NHVn  •  This  Vfl  became  naturally  **fl  which  was  itself  a  form  yy  . 
It  is  interesting  to  note  here  that  Syriac  Aphel  forms  like  '  abez,'  Partc. 
'  mabez  '  of  yy  verbs  are  in  their  turn  based  on  the  analogy  of  verbs 
?£}  .  Thus,  the  Aphel  of  Syriac  'n€faq'  is  'appeq,'  Partc.  'mappeq.' 
For  analogy  in  the  Semitic  languages  in  general,  cf.  Huizinga,  Disserta- 
tion on  "Analogy  in  the  Semitic  Languages,"  Baltimore,  1891. 

Verse  21.  a)  "iHp,  Assyrian  'taradu'  'drive  away,'  (passim);—  for 
ex.  '  ina  zumrisu  litrud,'  '  from  his  body  may  he  drive  it  ;'  IV  R.  15.  27/>. 

b)  *}t^  .  This  reading  as  a  passive  is  possible  and,  moreover,  is 
indicated  as  the  correct  one  by  the  old  translators;  Theodotion,  k86$ii. 
Vers.  Mass,  retfe/ra^  Vulg.,  '  positum  est,'  Syriac,  'estewe.'  See  also 
Lengerke,  Daniel,  p.  259  ;  Hitzig,  Daniel,  p.  84.  Kautzsch,  op.  cit.,  p. 
81,  however,  reads  here  V1^,  a  third  pers.  pi.  Pa'il,  unnecessarily 
transferring  the  *)  from  the  following  word  QJ71  .  For  the  use  of  this 


125 


verb  *1^  with  the  preposition  Q^,  cf.  Pesh.  St.  John  v.  18,  "s'wa  'am," 
and  in  Hebrew  the  construction  QJ^  ^^0^  in  Ps.  xxviii.  1  ;  cxliii.  7. 
In  Hebrew  the  construction  3  Ulti*  is  also  found  ;  cf.  Ps.  xviii.  34. 
A  precisely  equivalent  usage  is  that  of  the  Assyrian  'emu  kirna'  for 
which  see  note  to  Cyrus  Cyl.  1.  11. 

That  '  emu  '  has  the  meaning  'be  like,  is  shown  by  the  comparison 
4  emu  '  =  '  masalu,'  V  R.  47.  23a.  It  seems  to  me  rather  doubtful  if  the 
stem  PPC*  •  Arab.  saway,  Syr.  s'wa,  is  to  be  considered  with  Zinimern 
a  common  Semitic  possession  (Ztschr.  fur  Assyr.,  v.  85  ff.).  He  cites 
the  Assyrian  form  '  su-u-u  '  =  '  sum-mu-u,'  found  V  R.  28-87  e.  f. 
as  the  Piel  Infinitive  of  HlS^-  (Cf.  also  Bussps.,  16.  E.  A  similar 
form  to  'su-u-u'  is  '  qu-u-u  '  =  qum-mu-u  also  V  R.  1.  c.)  Zimmern 
then  proceeds  to  argue  that  an  original  ^  may  remain  in  a  few  verbs  pf*? 
in  A  -syrian,  contrary  to  Haupt,  Ztschr.  fur  Assyr.  ii.  259.  86  and  Bei- 
trage,  i.  293-300. 

Although  the  occurrence  in  Assyrian  of  the  three  signs  'pi,'  'me' 
and  'ma,'  indifferently  used  in  the  form  'u-sa-me,1  mentioned  by  Zim- 
mern, certainly  does  seem  to  indicate  a  10  pronunciation,  I  am  still  by 
no  means  convinced  that  the  w  is  necessarily  a  radical  letter  of  the  stem 
and  that  consequently  '  usame  '  ('usawe  ')  is  to  be  considered  the  Inten- 
sive of  a  stem  H1CV  and  that  'summu'  =  'su-u-u'  are  Infinitives  of 
this  Intensive.  It  appears  quite  possible  to  regard  these  forms  as 
two  variations  of  the  Shaphel  Infinitive  of  the  stem  j"TDJ7  ==  '  emu,'  be 
like,  resemble,  and  to  consider  the  m  as  a  radical.  In  this  case  the  w 
pronunciation  in  the  Shaphel  Infin.  '  su-u-u  '  must  be  understood  sim- 
ply as  a  secondary  ;/•  development  from  the  original  m,  which  is  seen  in 
the  usual  form  of  the  Infin.  Shaphel,  '  summu.'  Furthermore,  the  stem 
mC*-  i-<>mmon  to  Hebrew,  Syriac  and  Arabic,  may  itself  be  a  Shaphel 
formation  from  the  same  stem  as  Assyrian  '  summu  ;'  i.  e.  from 
Amiaud's  idea  that  Assyrian  'emu  '  is  to  be  derived,  not  from 


but  from  an  original       jOH  (??)  seems  to  me  quite  untenable.     (Cf. 
Ztschr.  fur  Assyr.  ii.  205.) 


c)  j/'DOV*  —  from  VyDV  ,  which  is  possibly  the  same  stem  as  in 
'cubbu'  'finger;'  i.e.  'the  dipping  member  '(?).  We  may  compare 
rian  'gebu,'  'to  dye,'  found  in  the  substantive  'c,ibutum'  =  tinctio, 
inimersio,  II  R.  30.  62  f.  There  are  three  words  of  this  form  '  gibutum  ' 
in  Assyrian;  viz.,  besides  the  above  ;  '  §ibutu  '  =  '  desire  '  (see  above 
note  c.  to  v.  19),  and  '  gibutu  '  =  '  a  precious  thing.'  Compare  for  these 
forms  Jensen,  Ztschr.  fur  Keilschriftsforschung,  ii.  26/27. 

Verse  25.  a)  For  exhaustive  discussion  of  this  verse  see  ch.  I.  of 
this  dissertation.  f*D""l5  =  half'-minas,  from  the  stem  D*15  ,  meaning 
'  break  '  in  the  sense  of  dividing  into  parts.  We  may  compare  Jere- 
miah xvi.  7  and  Isaiah  Iviii.  7.  where  it  is  used  of  the  breaking  of  bread. 
The  original  meaning  of  D"")5  •>  therefore,  seems  to  be  '  a  piece  '  or 
'  portion.'  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  only  in  the  word  '  half-mina,' 


does  the  meaning  '  half  belong  to  this  stem,  so  that  in  this  sense 
may  be  a  loan-word  in  Aramaean.     (See  Hoffmann,  Ztschr.  fur  Assyr. 
ii.  p.  47.) 

The  form  ^""l^  with  £*,  discovered  by  Granneau  on  the  weights,  may 
represent  a  distinctively  Assyrian  pronunciation  of  the  word.  (See  in 
this  connection,  Noldeke,  Ztschr.  fiir  Assyr.  i.  418.) 

Concerning  the  pronunciation  of  D  and  &  in  Assyro-Babylonian 
there  seems  to  be  a  confusion  of  ideas  among  scholars.  It  seems  evi- 
dent that  the  pronunciation  of  these  sibilants  in  Nineveh  was  not 
identical  with  that  common  in  Babylonia,  contrary  to  the  idea  of 
Delitzsch  (Paradies,  p.  131)  that  original  $  in  both  Assyrian  and 
Babylonian  later  became  confused  with  D ,  just  as  in  Ethiopic.  (See 
also  his  Assyrische  Grammatik,  p.  108  and  cf.  Hommel,  Jagdin- 
schriften,  p.  29.  5  and  Semiten,  p.  509.)  The  difference  between  the 
sibilants  seems  not  to  have  been  a  temporal  one  but  rather  local.  It  is 
evident  from  numerous  examples  in  the  inscriptions  that  $  was  pro- 
nounced s  in  the  northern  kingdom  but  s  in  the  southern,  while  D  was 
55?  in  Assyria,  but  had  its  true  value  in  Babylonia.  Thus,  in  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions  we  find  D^t^W  in  the  form  'Ursalimmu'  with 
s  for  s,  '  Asdudu'  for  1V"!£^N  etc.,  while  the  Babylonian  month  names 
Nisanu,  Hebr.  ?D'3  ;  Kislimu,  Hebr.  l^DD  i  etc.  are  sufficient  evidence 

IT-  ••    : 

that  D  and  &  had  their  true  value  in  the  south.  (For  further  exam- 
ples and  full  discussion,  see  Haupt,  J.  H.  U.  Circulars,  No.  59,  p.  118.) 
The  ordinary  scriptural  spelling  of  our  word  D*")tD  with  D  is  not  then 
necessarily  to  be  considered  a  later  usage  as  Halevy  thought,  (Recher- 
ches  Bibliques,  p.  491),  probably  following  the  opinion  of  Delitzsch 
regarding  the  temporal  difference  between  D  and  &*'. 


INDEX  OF   ASSYRIAN  WORDS   AND  FORMS  CITED 
IX  THE  APPENDICES. 


THE    NUMBERS    REFER    TO    THE    PAGES. 


Agaiutanu 

95   bela   

100   ma'dis  

...  83  |  cibutu  

125 

Agane  
iginzu 

82   biltu     

82   inaxru  

...118    nil  In 

7*; 

83   bultu  

101   maxiru  

...118 

(^almat  qaqqadi..  75 
?ippatu  94 
qalqaltum  81 
qiru                       19ft 

rtduru 

83   beltu  
74   Balatsu-u^ur  
96   bit  mummu  

119   maxxuti?  
123   matu  

....  74 
...  74 

axrata^ 

akitu  
alaktu  

101   mummu  

...101 

76   gallu  ... 

101    mandi  

...  83 
96 

qummii  

radii 

125 
96 

100  garanu 

76    MAS.  MAS.. 

96  gararu 

76    raassu  

96 

ridii 

96 

Elamtai 

74   Gutium  .. 

100   mustaru  
83    mi^ru  

....  75 
74 

94 

altu 

94   daddaru 

Rutu 

99 

elitum  
IM  —  <aru 

99   Dilbat  
99   dimtum  . 

119   Maradda.  ... 

....  99 

-§a  .      .. 

76  82 

74   marratu.. 

83 

se'u 

81  82 

fiuii                    74, 

125   Durilu  

.  83    mart  u  

....  83 

sibku  . 

96 

UmliaS 

82   Durkarasu  

97   ma^daxu  
Li4   ma^alu  
96   ma^taku  
120   Meturnu  
99    matitan  
83    initutfin  

....  76 
74,125 
....  83 
...  83 
....  76 
....  76 

subatsun. 

82 

\iuroanfuiu 

94    zii    

gadaxu 

76 

Amnanu  
Um  man-Luanda 

94   Zagmuku  

suzuzsun  ... 

salti 

....     82 
98 

75   zimii  

1M-RI-A  
Angan  
unninu 

94   Zamarna  

snlii 

98 

83   Zamban  

Jalamtas 

74  75 

74   xammu  

94    mutanu  

....  76 

Baldta 

98 

Ansan  
en 

80   xarine  

100   nadu  
.  99   nadu  

....100 
....  74 

^uliitu 

98 

74   Xarsagkalama.. 

^ulitu 

98 

AN-TA-BAL-KI 

assinnu  
isinnu  
Isparda  

i^ittu 

.  99   xasaxu  
.  96   xu^axxu  
.  96    xisixtu  
97    taradu  

.  81    nazfizu  

....  82 

125 

>1    napraku  
81    nasii    

....  82 
....100 

saplitum  

99 

Sara 

100,  122 
100,  122 
96 
124 
74 

.124    S1GISSE  

....  94 

surru  
>E>.  GAL... 
teybitu  

96   tatapu   

76   Salsallat  
119   Simanu 

....100 
100 

Upeki 

9*1    ttrnu 

aoouna 

83    ki  

74   Saparda  
.  76  |  suqu  

....  97 
....  76 

apnama  
i-rab  
Urigallu 

83   kilallan  

tukku  
TU-KIL-XU 

tilani? 

100 
83 
74 

97    kilatan  

76   sattukku. 

.     74 

96   kullatan. 

.  76   pixatu  

98 

I'll    S\L 

96    kima  

.  74   paku   .     ... 

.  77 

Tprnft 

95 

Pu 

122    kimtu  .           

•  94    panu 

....  83 
...     76 

118 

i<u 

122   kasaru 

74   naa  u 

tamsilu 

74 

i^dixu 

76    kisurru.. 

74   piqa 

76 

isxur  

83    karmis  . 

74   paraku 

82 
82 

tannStu 

76 

8"    Ki~ 

99   parakku 

76 

SJ    ki-^u 

....  97 
....   74 
83 

tarii 

75 

Istumegu  . 

94    kustaru  

.  82   parru  
12(1    patu 

taru  
tardinnu.  .  .  . 

75 
96 
75 

US-TUR-XU.... 

83   kutallu 

76   kitum 

i)9    pitu 

83 

atxu  
itxiitu   . 

.  76    labfmu  appi  
.  76   Jittaskaru  
.101   medilu.  . 

101    putaqu 

76 

Ti^ritu 

123 

ibu... 

...125 

biilu  .  .  . 

.  82  cebu... 

..  125 

12S 


ARAMAIC  WORDS   AND   FORMS. 


121 

122 

.iii,  us 

XTJ 120 

JDn 121 

VI 120 

;»1T 124 

nrn 124 

us 


124 


125      Kr\Bh:n ....  119,  120 


?rO 120 

inS 123 

........118 

119 

124 

....'..   .122 
D 122 


IpDJ 119 

naj? 125 

D3 120 

J'D"13....125,  126  i 
...12] 


119 

....124,  125 

121 

122 

. . . .  117,  118 

121 

. . . 121 


nionp 124 


usiv:       rr 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


TRW 


12,000(11/95) 


'  ^-b  vS 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


